HunterCA
Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EdBowie Others have said as much... the poet Dryden's 'eldest law' comes to mind. Apparently not everyone agrees that self defense is a good thing, but I'm in favor of it... myself. The usual debate rhetoric seems to revolve around the logical fallacy that a right can be carried to the absurd. quote:
ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote:
ORIGINAL: EdBowie I would hope that everyone would disparage criminal violence, but as you can see from this thread, there is a lot of jingoism, revisionism, and othering going on from all corners of the globe. The fundamental problem in comparing the US to other countries, is that there is no country with the needed factors to serve as a control. quote:
ORIGINAL: HunterCA My feeling is that this thread has been hijacked by people who want to disparage "American Violence." I'd like to discuss the right of the individual as discussed in the constitution and Declaration of Independence. But, after disparaging criminal violence, what right do individuals hold to protect themselves to protect themselves from said violence? I say whatever complete right. That is an interesting point. It's also a point that a post modern philosopher would agree with from the standpoint of who judges 'right'. In my case I then have to go back to the question does might make right? In a majority of the world it does. For instance if I'm in a bad part of town and accosted by bad people, if I have the might do I have the right to protect myself to an extreme. I believe I do. That extreme may not be right in an alternate situation. But, what right does the government have to pre-ordain my right prior to examination of the situation?
|