• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Do you agree with Florida Law on use of deadly force?

  • Agree

    Votes: 41 70.7%

  • Disagree

    Votes: 15 25.9%

  • I oppose the Second Amendment completely

    Votes: 1 1.7%

  • There should be no rule of law

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • Total voters
    58
Phoenix said:
Hells Yea, coddle and pamper the criminal bastards into rehabilitation.

oh. wait........
Click to expand...

Nor could you be a jury because you would not follow the law and are predisposed against it.
 
joko104 said:
What a bizarre concept you suggest... that the most qualified person is the person with zero experience. I doubt one person agrees with that concept.

So you think the right thing for him to do is to let them beat him to death with a hammer. Actually, he should have shot them both. That way neither would be capable of harming someone in the future.
Click to expand...

Right, I also think we should adopt this legislation into our laws:

From "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values" by Sam Harris Page 1:

The people of Albania have a venerable tradition of vendetta called Kanun: if a man commits a murder, his victim's family can kill any one of his male relatives in reprisal. If a boy has the misfortune of being the son or brother of a murderer, he must spend his [probable last] days and nights in hiding, forgoing a proper education, adequate health care, and the pleasures of a normal life. Untold numbers of Albanian men and boys live as prisoners of their homes even now. Can we say that the Albanians are morally wrong to have structured their society in this way? Is their tradition of blood feud a form of evil? Are their values interior to our own?
Click to expand...

If that system is not bizarre to you then you have lost all touch with our own justice system, which I'm not arguing is not fair but I think it is unfair for either reasons mainly things like plea-bargains.
 
Jryan said:
I'm glad you don't dictate our laws I guess. You really think someone who steals deserves the death penalty? So you ignore IQ tests, personality tests, statistics, data, and anything that proves that people are a product of society.
Click to expand...

So what if a person is the "product of society?" How does that make any difference? Rather, if a person is so deeply psychologically disturbed leading that person to acts of violence against others for reasons of cruelty and harm, that is someone that particularly should be removed from society. There is no shortage of humans on earth.

Who most finds malicious and cruel violence against other people reprehensible and intolerate are those who have most seen it happen. Those who are apathetic towards it are those of sheltered lives and believe they will never be the victim of it. They value only themselves. You value only yourself.

The reason there continues to be such massive levels of child abuse, violence, torture, horror, rape, murder and war in the world is exactly, 100%, because of people such as you. It is people of your apathy that are the cause. You are one of the people that are responsible for the violence.

The core of your beliefs is not intelligence and enlightenment, it is arrogance and cowardice.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
So what if a person is the "product of society?" How does that make any difference? Rather, if a person is so deeply psychologically disturbed leading that person to acts of violence against others for reasons of cruelty and harm, that is someone that particularly should be removed from society. There is no shortage of humans on earth.

You most finds malicious and cruel violence against other people reprehensible and intolerate are those who have most seen it happen. Those who are apathetic towards it are those of sheltered lives and believe they will never be the victim of it.

The reason there continues to be such massive levels of child abuse, violence, torture, horror, rape, murder and war in the world is exactly, 100%, because of people such as you. It is people of your apathy that are the cause. You are one of the people that are responsible for the violence.

The core of your beliefs is not intelligence and enlightenment, it is arrogance and cowardice.
Click to expand...

My point is, which you may have missed, is that if we don't have free will and our concious thought is controlled by our sub-concious thought, then we cannot blame the person so we cannot punish them. This does not mean we cannot remove them from society or make them go to psychological exams.
 
Jryan said:
Right, I also think we should adopt this legislation into our laws:

From "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values" by Sam Harris Page 1:



If that system is not bizarre to you then you have lost all touch with our own justice system, which I'm not arguing is not fair but I think it is unfair for either reasons mainly things like plea-bargains.
Click to expand...

I was raised in a culture of actually far worse "murder" values than that. However, for the Albania example you give I can see rationality it in and as a violence preventative. "Don't murder anyone in my family or I will murder one of your family members" is not an outrageous concept to me. I know in fact that a cultural value of murder-for-murder does prevent murder among the most otherwise murderous people. In fact, that was one of the few limiting factor on murder between the men. It is unfortunate that value did not exist towards children and women too.

There is only one certain way to insure a murderer or aggravated violent assailant or rapist never does so to any else again. Destroy that animal. Then everyone is safe from that person forever more.
 
Last edited:
Jryan said:
My point is, which you may have missed, is that if we don't have free will and our concious thought is controlled by our sub-concious thought, then we cannot blame the person so we cannot punish them. This does not mean we cannot remove them from society or make them go to psychological exams.
Click to expand...

A person is responsible for their own actions. They can "think" whatever they want. I didn't miss your point at all. I do not accept psychological disturbance as an excuse. Rather, I see it as just meaning the person is more dangerous. If the person's "sub-conscious" is screwed up leading that person toward extreme cruel and malicious violence, that would more confirm what it best for all people is if that person is eliminated/erased because that person has a screwed up brain leading the person to harm or destroy other people.
 
No, the reason we are heading toward the "dark ages" is because of people who refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions, and those who excuse atrocities as actions that people just can't control, because they are victims of society.
 
joko104 said:
A person is responsible for their own actions. They can "think" whatever they want. I didn't miss your point at all. I do not accept psychological disturbance as an excuse. Rather, I see it as just meaning the person is more dangerous. If the person's "sub-conscious" is screwed up leading that person toward extreme cruel and malicious violence, that would more confirm what it best for all people is if that person is eliminated/erased because that person has a screwed up brain leading the person to harm or destroy other people.
Click to expand...

good point-one can argue that a contract killer who is motivated by economic reasons is more salvageable than a whacked out nut case. its like a trained attack dog vs one with rabies
 
joko104 said:
A person is responsible for their own actions. They can "think" whatever they want. I didn't miss your point at all. I do not accept psychological disturbance as an excuse. Rather, I see it as just meaning the person is more dangerous. If the person's "sub-conscious" is screwed up leading that person toward extreme cruel and malicious violence, that would more confirm what it best for all people is if that person is eliminated/erased because that person has a screwed up brain leading the person to harm or destroy other people.
Click to expand...

So in a sense, we should punish criminals because they had the bad luck of being born with a low IQ and the even more misfortune of being born into an abusive home? If you would like to structure our country into a system of punishment to those who have already lived a punished life, I don't know what else I can say to you to convince you that this would be morally screwed. You would be maximizing the bad life while diminishing the good life.

Edit: Writing a blog on this subject if anyone is interested.
 
Jryan said:
So in a sense, we should punish criminals because they had the bad luck of being born with a low IQ and the even more misfortune of being born into an abusive home? If you would like to structure our country into a system of punishment to those who have already lived a punished life, I don't know what else I can say to you to convince you that this would be morally screwed. You would be maximizing the bad life while diminishing the good life.

.
Click to expand...

Even a dog can learn what the word *No* means. As long as people can act within the standards of a civil society, there is no problem. If a human with a criminal mind cannot control his own impulses and actions, then yes, he should be restricted to whatever extent is necessarily to keep him from causing harm to others.
 
lizzie said:
Even a dog can learn what the word *No* means. As long as people can act within the standards of a civil society, there is no problem. If a human with a criminal mind cannot control his own impulses and actions, then yes, he should be restricted to whatever extent is necessarily to keep him from causing harm to others.
Click to expand...

I agree partially, I'm arguing that no one can control their impulses and actions without an outside influence. So, I guess in my argument, should we not only remove them for a stated period of time but also require them to work on their obvious lacking of a positive mental condition?
 
Jryan said:
So in a sense, we should punish criminals because they had the bad luck of being born with a low IQ and the even more misfortune of being born into an abusive home? If you would like to structure our country into a system of punishment to those who have already lived a punished life, I don't know what else I can say to you to convince you that this would be morally screwed. You would be maximizing the bad life while diminishing the good life.

Edit: Writing a blog on this subject if anyone is interested.
Click to expand...

Nothing I wrote even hints that a person should be "punished because they had the bad luck of being born with a low IQ and the even more misfortune of being born into an abusive home." I wrote that a person is responsible for his or her own actions. If there is judgment - as YOU put it - is should be based upon ACTIONS, not a person's subconscious.

Mostly, I'm saying you don't have a clue in reality what you are talking about. People can find books including by psychologists that say anything including exact opposites. There are centuries of books by philsophers and "psychologists" explaining the moral justifications of using physical torture as punishment, claiming that torture is more just and rational as punishment for all persons involved including the offender rather than prison. A person can pick whatever books they want. They prove nothing at all.

In my youth I saw and experienced more "abuse" than anyone would believe if I wrote 1/1ooth of it and it had been going on for nearly a century. Of those who survived it - and many did not - the result was 1 of 3 kinds of people "psychologically":

1. Defeated, broken people. They have no will power whatsoever, are totally submissive to everyone and everything, and so incapable of making a decision just picking what they want off a restaurant menu is an impossible task.

2. Violent. When becoming adult (not necessarily 18) it is their turn to have the power of violence. Those are exorbitantly dangerous men and should be destroyed. Calculating in all ways, they would easily come to appear to be "cured," but the are time bombs with hair triggers. They willl do what was done to them and worse. They can not be cured the the horror, fear, pain and destruction of other people they will do can never be portrayed in any words and doing so is pleasurable to them in an entertainment and ego-stoking sense. No one who has not seen what such men will do can not possibly wrap their head around that reality.

3. Resistant. When becoming adult, they will absolutely oppose such violence of men and will do so proactively and with a determination to be more "powerful" than such evil men. It can become the priority of their life. Violent men are "the enemy." Those are men you should never prick around because they won't take intimidation again, will never be submissive again, will not tolerate anyone poising potential harm to them (or their own people of their life) and they are the worst person to do violence towards children (and possibly women) around. That is who I am.

I am about the worst person for anyone to violently assault a child in front of and, circumstantially, to be violent against women - though there are exceptions where I would not intervene. I was detained, questioned and arrested quite a few times in this regards, but no convictions.

Violence between men is a different matter. I may or may not "rescue" another man under violent assault. I would if he is one of "mine" or if he is someone I felt would come to my aid. Knowing your words, I would not come to your aid. If you were being assaulted in front of me and knowing your beliefs, I would be untroubled sipping on a bourbon watching someone beat you to death. Not as some retaliation and I don't mean this as a flame. Nor it is a slogan. I've watched men beaten down that I could have easily stopped. Violence between men is violence between men. However it ends is how it ends.

Thus as a theoretical, I would have come to the aid of Zimmerman because what he was doing was giving his time, energy and putting himself at risk to look out for his neighbors. I would not have come to the aid of Martin because as I understand facts I believe he violently attacked Zimmerman with no necessity to do so. Having done so, I am untroubled that Zimmerman shot and killed him. That was a conflict between two men, one died, at that point one was going to. If one of the two HAD to die, it is the one of the two I would prefer it be. It is known Zimmerman comes to people's aid. He shoved a cop off his buddy. Another time he reported a cop harassing a homeless person. And - no benefit to himself - he was watching out for the neighborhood. I don't read Martin ever having done anything good for anyone in his life and by the school he was a juvenile delinquent punk. Thus, Zimmerman worthy of my efforts on his behalf and Martin not.

Why I would not come to your aid?

1.) I know you are a person who would only rely on others and in ways no one could rely upon you and 2.) your empathy is towards the person assaulting you, not towards yourself as the victim if this was another man.

What you write of is just book-words and a person can find any books of any words they want. Those are not reality. Those are people selling books for their profit.

ALL empathy you have written, 100%, is ONLY towards people who maliciously and cruelly do violence towards others. THOSE are you you try to defend. I have exactly no sympathy for such men myself. So we are truly opposition. You WANT to defend the rapists. I will and have defended the victim or would-be victim. It is that simple a distinction between us.
 
Last edited:
Jryan said:
So in a sense, we should punish criminals because they had the bad luck of being born with a low IQ and the even more misfortune of being born into an abusive home? If you would like to structure our country into a system of punishment to those who have already lived a punished life, I don't know what else I can say to you to convince you that this would be morally screwed. You would be maximizing the bad life while diminishing the good life.

Edit: Writing a blog on this subject if anyone is interested.
Click to expand...

Not everyone who is born into an abusive home becomes a criminal. People choose criminal behavior.
 
Jryan said:
I agree partially, I'm arguing that no one can control their impulses and actions without an outside influence. So, I guess in my argument, should we not only remove them for a stated period of time but also require them to work on their obvious lacking of a positive mental condition?
Click to expand...

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. You can't force someone to fix their mental and emotional problems. Only they can do that, of their own free will. You can place limits on their negative behaviors, but this amounts to little more than training animals to behave. As long as they are behaving, I don't care if they *fix* their problems. That is an issue that only they can deal with.
 
Jryan said:
I agree partially, I'm arguing that no one can control their impulses and actions without an outside influence. So, I guess in my argument, should we not only remove them for a stated period of time but also require them to work on their obvious lacking of a positive mental condition?
Click to expand...

Drawing happy faces with crayons?

Sure, many people can benefit from counseling. No doubt. I've voluntarily been in counseling. I've suggested it to others. BUT a person who can find pleasure in causing other people to suffer, causing terror and causing horrific pain is not a curable person. However, many are manipulative enough to convince others they have been. There is essentially no cure for a violent, brutal pedifile or rapist because it is the cruelty and suffering that is the pleasure of it.

Petty stuff, theft, someone losing their cool etc are all things that can be addressed and, in a sense, "cured" or the person grows out of it. But someone who finds pleasure in physically hurting others for the horror, suffering and terror they cause cannot be cured. Whether life's unfairness cause the person to be this way changes nothing nor can that past be eliminated. Its not a dog's fault if it bitten by a rabid racoon. You still put the dog down.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
Not everyone who is born into an abusive home becomes a criminal. People choose criminal behavior.
Click to expand...

Right, but being born into an abusive home increases the probability that they will become a criminal/drug addict. One only need to walk into a prison to figure this out. Their are other things at play here as I have mentioned. Genes, chemical balances, influences from school, and say a friend that does drugs... All of this are circumstantial, the limit on what friends you can have are limited by the friends in your neighborhood. Not to mention, if both your parents are drug addicts you will have common grounds with this friend, and sense that common ground has been set I think it wouldn't be unreasonable for the duo to experiment with drugs at a later age. The point is, if you are born into an abusive home, the seed has been planted.
 
joko104 said:
Drawing happy faces with crayons?
Click to expand...

Someone in a positive mental state wouldn't make the choice to go and rob/mug someone or smoke crack... Someone in a positive mental state would seem "out of character" to do something like this.
 
lizzie said:
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. You can't force someone to fix their mental and emotional problems. Only they can do that, of their own free will. You can place limits on their negative behaviors, but this amounts to little more than training animals to behave. As long as they are behaving, I don't care if they *fix* their problems. That is an issue that only they can deal with.
Click to expand...

Wrong because to someone in a bad state of mind, they don't know that their is a better alternative that in a sense what they are doing is a destruction of themselves. They also do not know that the grass is greener on the other side. These things never enter into their consciousness. If that is the case, that the choice never "comes to them", then they could never know. Although, conflicting beliefs do arise. So for a person who is an alcoholic. Maybe they want to quit ultimately but their is still that primal drive to drink. So they lose this battle in the moment because of the conflicting beliefs. Sort of, one over powers the other at a given time of the day.
 
Jryan said:
Right, but being born into an abusive home increases the probability that they will become a criminal/drug addict. One only need to walk into a prison to figure this out. Their are other things at play here as I have mentioned. Genes, chemical balances, influences from school, and say a friend that does drugs... All of this are circumstantial, the limit on what friends you can have are limited by the friends in your neighborhood. Not to mention, if both your parents are drug addicts you will have common grounds with this friend, and sense that common ground has been set I think it wouldn't be unreasonable for the duo to experiment with drugs at a later age. The point is, if you are born into an abusive home, the seed has been planted.
Click to expand...

Sure, if you didn't have parents who helped you make good decisions, then you're more likely to make poor ones. They're still decisions that the individual makes.

Human beings are more than a collection of experiences, genes, and chemicals.

You can work with someone and try to help them make better decisions, but in the end, it's their decisions that count. They are free to choose the good or the bad.
 
Jryan said:
Wrong because to someone in a bad state of mind, they don't know that their is a better alternative that in a sense what they are doing is a destruction of themselves. They also do not know that the grass is greener on the other side. These things never enter into their consciousness. If that is the case, that the choice never "comes to them", then they could never know. Although, conflicting beliefs do arise. So for a person who is an alcoholic. Maybe they want to quit ultimately but their is still that primal drive to drink. So they lose this battle in the moment because of the conflicting beliefs. Sort of, one over powers the other at a given time of the day.
Click to expand...

Their "issues" are theirs to resolve. My only concern is whether or not they can live within a civil society.
 
joko104 said:
Nothing I wrote even hints that a person should be "punished because they had the bad luck of being born with a low IQ and the even more misfortune of being born into an abusive home." I wrote that a person is responsible for his or her own actions. If there is judgment - as YOU put it - is should be based upon ACTIONS, not a person's subconscious.

Mostly, I'm saying you don't have a clue in reality what you are talking about. People can find books including by psychologists that say anything including exact opposites. There are centuries of books by philsophers and "psychologists" explaining the moral justifications of using physical torture as punishment, claiming that torture is more just and rational as punishment for all persons involved including the offender rather than prison. A person can pick whatever books they want. They prove nothing at all.

In my youth I saw and experienced more "abuse" than anyone would believe if I wrote 1/1ooth of it and it had been going on for nearly a century. Of those who survive it - and many did not - the result was 1 of 3 kinds of people "psychologically":

1. Defeated, broken people. They have no will power whatsoever, are totally submissive to everyone and everything, and so incapable of making a decision just picking what they want off a restaurant menu is an impossible task.

2. Violent. When becoming adult (not necessarily 18) it is their turn to have the power of violence. Those are exorbitantly dangerous men and should be destroyed. Calculating in all ways, they would easily come to appear to be "cured," but the are time bombs with hair triggers. They willl do what was done to them and worse. They can not be cured the the horror, fear, pain and destruction of other people they will do can never be portrayed in any words and doing so is pleasurable to them in an entertainment and ego-stoking sense. No one who has not seen what such men will do can not possibly wrap their head around that reality.

3. Resistant. When becoming adult, they will absolutely oppose such violence of men and will do so proactively and with a determination to be more "powerful" than such evil men. It can become the priority of their life. Violent men are "the enemy." Those are men you should never prick around because they won't take intimidation again, will never be submissive again, will not tolerate anyone poising potential harm to them (or their own people of their life) and they are the worst person to do violence towards children (and possibly women) around. That is who I am.

I am about the worst person for anyone to violently assault a child in front of and, circumstantially, to be violent against women - though there are exceptions where I would not intervene. I was detained, questioned and arrested quite a few times in this regards, but no convictions.

Violence between men is a different matter. I may or may not "rescue" another man under violent assault. I would if he is one of "mine" or if he is someone I felt would come to my aid. Knowing your words, I would not come to your aid. If you were being assaulted in front of me and knowing your beliefs, I would be untroubled sipping on a bourbon watching someone beat you to death. Not as some retaliation and I don't mean this as a flame. Nor it is a slogan. I've watched men beaten down that I could have easily stopped. Violence between men is violence between men. However it ends is how it ends.

Thus as a theoretical, I would have come to the aid of Zimmerman because what he was doing was giving his time, energy and putting himself at risk to look out for his neighbors. I would not have come to the aid of Martin because as I understand facts I believe he violently attacked Zimmerman with no necessity to do so. Having done so, I am untroubled that Zimmerman shot and killed him. That was a conflict between two men, one died, at that point one was going to. If one of the two HAD to die, it is the one of the two I would prefer it be. It is known Zimmerman comes to people's aid. He shoved a cop off his buddy. Another time he reported a cop harassing a homeless person. And - no benefit to himself - he was watching out for the neighborhood. I don't read Martin ever having done anything good for anyone in his life and by the school he was a juvenile delinquent punk. Thus, Zimmerman worthy of my efforts on his behalf and Martin not.

Why I would not come to your aid?

1.) I know you are a person who would only rely on others and in ways no one could rely upon you and 2.) your empathy is towards the person assaulting you, not towards yourself as the victim if this was another man.

What you write of is just book-words and a person can find any books of any words they want. Those are not reality. Those are people selling books for their profit.

ALL empathy you have written, 100%, is ONLY towards people who maliciously and cruelly do violence towards others. THOSE are you you try to defend. I have exactly no sympathy for such men myself. So we are truly opposition. You WANT to defend the rapists. I will and have defended the victim or would-be victim. It is that simple a distinction between us.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to dignify this insult with a response...
 
Jryan said:
My point is, which you may have missed, is that if we don't have free will and our concious thought is controlled by our sub-concious thought, then we cannot blame the person so we cannot punish them. This does not mean we cannot remove them from society or make them go to psychological exams.
Click to expand...

Well, I can't help wanting dangerous criminals dead, its my nature and I have no free will. :mrgreen:


You can't help being naive and clueless on this issue because you have no free will.... :wassat1:


Zimmerman couldn't help shooting Martin because he has no free will....

Blah blah blah.... see how ridiculous this gets?
 
lizzie said:
Their "issues" are theirs to resolve. My only concern is whether or not they can live within a civil society.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. How about this, if they are put in jail and realize what they had done was wrong and want to change, should we offer them psychological help if they ask for it?
 
Jryan said:
I completely agree. How about this, if they are put in jail and realize what they had done was wrong and want to change, should we offer them psychological help if they ask for it?
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with the thread at all.
 
I'am not in favor of the Stand Your Ground law. It could be used to push for "justifiable" homicides. JMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom