So now it should be legal to kill people because it's easy? What a wonderful world we would live in if you got your way.
The difference is by hurting him more then necessary you're making yourself guilty of assault and by killing him you're making yourself guilty of manslaughter.
He said that doing something stupid(Attacking him) means he should be allowed to kill them. The vast majority of the world disagree with him based on the UN human rights and most countries laws including afaik all of America except texas.
That's the point, the stupid(criminal) still has a right to live. And as a popular american saying goes "Your rights end right where mine starts".
That means your right to self defense doesn't extend to killing someone because they still have the right to live. That's part of the very core of the human rights.
You can knock someone out or keep them in a hold without maiming them. It actually takes a lot of effort to permanently maim someone, the jumping and kicking on people already lying down kind.
I don't know about american law, but atleast in Swedish law the right to Self-Defense does not extend to the right to kill. You're only allowed to use the force necessary to keep yourself safe and it's really hard to argue that killing or maiming is necessary.
What you are meant to do is call the police and let them handle it. You're allowed to try to capture(not kill) the criminal but the police generally recommends against that since it's dangerous.
Noone has said that they're meant to go free, however they need a fair trial, their crimes need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If he's as guilty as you say he is, then that should be trivial.
I wonder, would proving humans to be deterministic once and for all shatter the idea of souls existence?
It would also have interesting effect on criminal law. If we knew humans can't actually decide how they act then punishment as we have it right now would be pretty meaningless. Then we'd have to focus on how we can change the deterministic behavior rather then trying to punish.
If you start making exceptions just because someone is indirectly responsible for a lot of deaths then you start on a slippery slope that undermines the entire justice system.
If Adolf or Stalin were still alive then it would be trivial to prove their crimes and deal with it through the justice system. No need to become like them yourself and destroy the very thing you're meant to protect.
You might feel no guilt, but I'd still charge you for murder.
Why would I feel the same way if he would have attacked Paris or London? You're making odd assumptions about where I live and how nationalistic Europeans are.
As the other poster have said terrorists are not necessarily foreign, many if not most (don't have any statistics at hand so this might be bs) bombers are domestic.
Personally I would be terrified of living in a country where you can just shoot people on sight because the government says they've done something without bothering to prove it, that power would be extremely easy to abuse.
I think the right to a fair trial and innocent until proven guilty are core concepts of a democracy and shouldn't be sacrificed because of rather pathetic things like terrorism (Compare total number of deaths caused by terrorism to the number of deaths caused by cheeseburgers).
While the RTS map layout could probably be easily generated it takes a human to make it look good. Computers tend to generate very unrealistic looking maps.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly enough I use the wiimote the same way as I use the mouse, that is I let my arm rest somewhere and only use small wrist movements.
Just because he is infringing your rights doesn't give you the right to infringe his rights.
So now it should be legal to kill people because it's easy? What a wonderful world we would live in if you got your way.
The difference is by hurting him more then necessary you're making yourself guilty of assault and by killing him you're making yourself guilty of manslaughter.
He said that doing something stupid(Attacking him) means he should be allowed to kill them. The vast majority of the world disagree with him based on the UN human rights and most countries laws including afaik all of America except texas.
That's the point, the stupid(criminal) still has a right to live. And as a popular american saying goes "Your rights end right where mine starts".
That means your right to self defense doesn't extend to killing someone because they still have the right to live. That's part of the very core of the human rights.
You can knock someone out or keep them in a hold without maiming them. It actually takes a lot of effort to permanently maim someone, the jumping and kicking on people already lying down kind.
I don't know about american law, but atleast in Swedish law the right to Self-Defense does not extend to the right to kill. You're only allowed to use the force necessary to keep yourself safe and it's really hard to argue that killing or maiming is necessary.
I wrote wrong, I meant to write "no tool which only use is to kill".
Coffee making ICBM would be hilarious.
Excuse my Godwin, but wanting to kill the "stupid" was one of the things Hitler wanted to do....
I agree that the current "less then lethal" weapons are not terribly good at anything, they're both lethal and hard to use properly.
When they sell shoes with a built in knife tip?
Why are you treating economic theory like it's a passage from the bible, an absolute truth that can't be questioned.
According to your theory noone would ever pay money to charity because noone is forcing them to through draconian laws.
And what if the criminal also had been armed? What if the situation was escalated?
Would the gun still save lives? I'd argue that the only thing that saved lives there was chance.
I'm hoping that one day there won't be any weapons designed only to kill.
What does that have to do with anything?
What you are meant to do is call the police and let them handle it. You're allowed to try to capture(not kill) the criminal but the police generally recommends against that since it's dangerous.
Noone has said that they're meant to go free, however they need a fair trial, their crimes need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If he's as guilty as you say he is, then that should be trivial.
Which is a good point.
I wonder, would proving humans to be deterministic once and for all shatter the idea of souls existence?
It would also have interesting effect on criminal law. If we knew humans can't actually decide how they act then punishment as we have it right now would be pretty meaningless. Then we'd have to focus on how we can change the deterministic behavior rather then trying to punish.
If you start making exceptions just because someone is indirectly responsible for a lot of deaths then you start on a slippery slope that undermines the entire justice system.
If Adolf or Stalin were still alive then it would be trivial to prove their crimes and deal with it through the justice system. No need to become like them yourself and destroy the very thing you're meant to protect.
You might feel no guilt, but I'd still charge you for murder.
Why would I feel the same way if he would have attacked Paris or London? You're making odd assumptions about where I live and how nationalistic Europeans are.
As the other poster have said terrorists are not necessarily foreign, many if not most (don't have any statistics at hand so this might be bs) bombers are domestic.
Personally I would be terrified of living in a country where you can just shoot people on sight because the government says they've done something without bothering to prove it, that power would be extremely easy to abuse.
I think the right to a fair trial and innocent until proven guilty are core concepts of a democracy and shouldn't be sacrificed because of rather pathetic things like terrorism (Compare total number of deaths caused by terrorism to the number of deaths caused by cheeseburgers).
Well, with the same input windows will always fuck up in the same way.
So if the government labeled your kids/spouse/parents as enemy of the state without proof you'd just kill them with no hesitation?
Maybe he enjoys life? Why don't you just crawl away and die?
He obviously doesn't mean looking at yourself through a mirror, that would be silly.
What he is talking about is self awareness, being able to think about it's own existence.
I'm not sure executing code qualifies as thinking, after all computers are provable deterministic.
While the RTS map layout could probably be easily generated it takes a human to make it look good. Computers tend to generate very unrealistic looking maps.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/aug2008/batdeaths
Apparently bat lungs are sensitive to sudden pressure changes.