Yes, I know you are BadAnalogyGuy, but there is a fundamental failure of cultural knowledge here which I have to be pedantic about. Chinese are just as averse to tattoos as the Japanese. In dynastic China only criminals were marked with things like tattoos, and such things were thought to bring shame to the family (and by extension of course, ancestors) and so was unfilial (impious) in a Confucian society.
So then why is life expectancy higher now in Shanghai than New York City, Mr. Health Expert? In fact, why don't you go to Shanghai and see how well that fits your expectation of a "third world hellhole".
You also contradict yourself when you talk about how China doesn't care about health or safety or wages but they're "looking after their own" we're not (and while we care about health, safety, wages, etc.). What it boils down to is China is successful because they are willing to do business, willing to work, at virtually any cost. That includes principle.
You know why China is making such huge inroads into Africa right now? They're going in there and saying to the governments, "Look, we're fucking China, we don't care about human rights, we just want these resources and this what we will give you for them." This is in contrast to the West which usually tries to use trade with African countries as a wedge for socio-political reform.
You're not going to achieve anything by flailing around attacking some faceless demonized corporate menace. Corporations are integral to the economy, and in fact were a major factor if not *the* major factor in the previous vitality of the US economy. You might as well just assault the economy itself. There are really only two ways out a) find a method of containing and constraining China (hahahahaha!) so that they cannot simultaneously underbid and overachieve by way of lack of internal restraints in key areas or b) follow their lead and sell out everything to remain competitive.
What aboot Canada, eh? Canada is freakin' huge, and there were a metric fuckton of diamonds discovered in the middle of frozen nowhere north of Yellow Knife. There have to be a lot of minerals undiscovered in all that frozen wasteland.
Since there are no (accepted) English gender neutral pronouns for people and because saying he or she every time is tedious, many publications just switch back and forth through multiple examples to demonstrate that they aren't sexists. Wizards of the Coast does this in their books, they'll do Example A using all female pronouns and then do Example B using all male back and forth throughout the books.
I say it because it is actually illegal in many if not all US jurisdictions to present legal advice as though one were a lawyer. In some places it is even a felony. I am something of a legal hobbyist, and I would rather be safe than sorry on even the appearance of impropriety. Bar associations rather bitterly defend their monopoly on legal advice and representation.
I am not a legalist at all. I don't believe laws by their nature are inherently correct, nor the will of the majority, but if you don't think about consequences pragmatically you could ruin your life or the lives of your family. There are many things I might believe are right to do in the abstract that I don't do because the practical outcome of doing abstractly 'right' things in violation of the law would harm my interests and those of my family. Now in a life or death scenario analogous to that of harboring Jews during the Nazi regime as you suggest, I would find it harder to oppose my conscience than the law, but those scenarios are few and far between. The difference too is that is a matter of saving lives, not taking them.
So in the special case of special case where special history and special circumstances are applied, it might if a jury agrees be justifiable to shoot somebody skulking around your car.
...
Yeah, that's some pretty strong and sound legal advice right there. If I rolled my eyes any harder they might exit my skull. The point remains, Castle Doctrine does not mean you can shoot anybody on your property on a whim, or even a general suspicion. You must meet specific criteria of mind and circumstance and be prepared to defend it in open court to twelve good men and true. Castle Doctrine and deadly force in general are not things to be played with, taken lightly, or abused. Rash actors will get what they deserve.
Where 'conformism' is getting a enough people to agree to disregard everyone and everything else together, yes, but it's just scaling up the individual problem to a group problem. The difference between a person who hates homosexuals because of his personal interpretation of a religious text who goes on to commit murder on that pretext and a group of people who hate homosexuals because of a collective interpretation of a religious text who then go on to abuse the authority of state to execute the otherwise innocent on that pretext is purely organizational.
Reasonable people realize that they are not the sole arbiters of moral action, that some concessions need to be made in order to maintain a stable and productive society. I can't unilaterally decide who lives or who dies, no matter how sure I am of their guilt of some heinous crime, because if that were allowed society would devolve into barbarism.
Sparky, if you think they're going to shoot you, it's not defense of property anymore anyway, that simply becomes self-defense. You would need to have reason to believe that they were armed, which has heretofore not been assumed.
I did not miss that, at what point do you think somebody merely being suspicious around your car constitutes 'substantial risk'? Especially when you're the one with a drawn and sighted firearm?
Yes, that is present in (2); however, you're missing the critical little 'and ' which includes (3)(A) wherein the person must demonstrate that he could reasonably believe that there was no other method by which the property could be protected or recovered.
When you mention a garage, that changes the scenario to home invasion. Without that information one can only assume the car is simply parked on your property, not necessarily in an occupied structure. My point remains, you can't just shoot somebody for walking up to your car. You can just shoot somebody for breaking down your door, assuming you don't have reason to believe they are law enforcement. There are cases where law enforcement might break down your door without a warrant, such as if a suspect had managed to flee the scene of a murder and was observed to break into your house. Whether or not you were in a position to dispatch such a person the LEOs wouldn't know, they would assume that such a suspect would represent an imminent threat to others and proceed without need of a warrant. That would not justify you shooting them for following the suspect through whatever means he had utilized to break into the house.
I am not a lawyer and the previous should not be construed as legal advice.
The only reading of that law that would apply here is categorizing the placement of a tracker as 'criminal mischief' and would still be subject to the burden of proving that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means". So, yeah, not so much 'in many cases'.
I am not a lawyer, the previous is not legal advice, but it's still better advice than the parent.
Dan667 has already said what I was going to say. This is why people are afraid of Muslims and other religious fundamentalists. All you apparently need is to feel what you're doing is right and then you ignore everyone and everything else. It's a dangerous mindset that is divorced from reality and responsibility by design. It is the very mindset that has enabled and empowered all of the atrocities committed in the name of religion, and for that matter, ideologies in general.
That is not how Castle Doctrine works, and you do a great disservice to all responsible gun owners by spreading such FUD, not to mention being a poor example of character. There would be insufficient evidence from somebody just walking up to your vehicle, stooping down, and then walking away for you to 'reasonably believe' that they were committing an act sufficient enough to warrant a response of deadly force. You would not *ever* get that to stand up in court.
People like you are an embarrassment to those of us who work hard to get things like Castle Doctrine in place, and then you interpret it, in complete ignorance, to mean that you can kill any person for any reason so long as they have a foot over your property line. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a false flag plant of gun control advocates out to make gun owners look bad.
I realize after the fact that where I said Pluto I meant Hades. They're the same thing of course, but it looks silly to switch from Greek context to Roman.
The difference is the origin of power, not 'who is in charge'. In Abrahamic monotheisms, the 'one true god' is the source of all things and all power. All other supernatural beings have whatever power they have because Allah/Yahweh consciously willed them to have that power, and they exercise that power as part of his grand design at his pleasure. It is also understood that Yahweh/Allah could revoke any or all power from any created thing at any time by no more than another conscious act of will.
This is contrasted with polytheisms where gods have power in-and-of-themselves. Zeus may have been the leader of the Greek pantheon, but he could not strip the power from Pluto for instance (though gods can kill each other, it's not in the Abrahamic act-of-will sense but rather a visceral physical battle). The inability of the gods to affect each other or even use powers exclusively possessed of one another is obvious in some of the major mythologies such as when Demeter refused to allow any crops to grow or the analogous case where Amaterasu hid in a cave in a huff and plunged the world into darkness. Until these gods were placated by the other gods there was no way for crops to grow or the sun to rise because those were exclusive powers of the relative deities.
To bring this example full circle, let's suppose, purely hypothetically, that Allah/Yahweh appointed an angel to move the sun around, and then another angel got jealous and killed the first angel. Because of the nature of Abrahamic monotheism that wouldn't be a problem. The power to move the sun wasn't intrinsic to the angel, but just a delegative grant from the one and only source of power, who could then just appoint a different angel to do the same thing. Monotheism does not require that there be only one supernatural entity, only that there be only one ultimate supernatural power which assigns/delegates the powers of any lesser supernatural beings.
Too bad that the world doesn't care how you personally define monotheism, especially since by your definition there are practically no monotheistic religions. Islam has djinns and angels just as Judaism and Christianity have angels and devils. The only religion I can think of that might match your description is that of Atenism, and that may only be because the supernatural bogeymen of that short lived sect are lost to history. The fact is that it's very hard for religions to have meaning outside of conflict, and that conflict is naturally between supernatural forces of opposite moral alignment. If you think everything allegedly supernatural is a 'god', you're simply ignoring the context from almost every religious system known to history. At the end of the day it's a debate about categorizing the imaginary, and is no more productive than debating the number of angels who could proceed to get funky on the head of a pin, but one can still be ignorant about the imaginary where such is categorized by its believers. You fall into that group.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I know you are BadAnalogyGuy, but there is a fundamental failure of cultural knowledge here which I have to be pedantic about. Chinese are just as averse to tattoos as the Japanese. In dynastic China only criminals were marked with things like tattoos, and such things were thought to bring shame to the family (and by extension of course, ancestors) and so was unfilial (impious) in a Confucian society.
So then why is life expectancy higher now in Shanghai than New York City, Mr. Health Expert? In fact, why don't you go to Shanghai and see how well that fits your expectation of a "third world hellhole".
You also contradict yourself when you talk about how China doesn't care about health or safety or wages but they're "looking after their own" we're not (and while we care about health, safety, wages, etc.). What it boils down to is China is successful because they are willing to do business, willing to work, at virtually any cost. That includes principle.
You know why China is making such huge inroads into Africa right now? They're going in there and saying to the governments, "Look, we're fucking China, we don't care about human rights, we just want these resources and this what we will give you for them." This is in contrast to the West which usually tries to use trade with African countries as a wedge for socio-political reform.
You're not going to achieve anything by flailing around attacking some faceless demonized corporate menace. Corporations are integral to the economy, and in fact were a major factor if not *the* major factor in the previous vitality of the US economy. You might as well just assault the economy itself. There are really only two ways out a) find a method of containing and constraining China (hahahahaha!) so that they cannot simultaneously underbid and overachieve by way of lack of internal restraints in key areas or b) follow their lead and sell out everything to remain competitive.
Yes, I have not been this impressed since the release of Derek Smart's Desktop Commander.
I couldn't help but reading that in my mind in the style of one of Harry Enfield's sketches.
What aboot Canada, eh? Canada is freakin' huge, and there were a metric fuckton of diamonds discovered in the middle of frozen nowhere north of Yellow Knife. There have to be a lot of minerals undiscovered in all that frozen wasteland.
Since there are no (accepted) English gender neutral pronouns for people and because saying he or she every time is tedious, many publications just switch back and forth through multiple examples to demonstrate that they aren't sexists. Wizards of the Coast does this in their books, they'll do Example A using all female pronouns and then do Example B using all male back and forth throughout the books.
Reminds me of this comic about why games went XBOX exclusive.
So are hotels and libraries and coffee shops "on the hook" for terrorism and child pr0n too?
I say it because it is actually illegal in many if not all US jurisdictions to present legal advice as though one were a lawyer. In some places it is even a felony. I am something of a legal hobbyist, and I would rather be safe than sorry on even the appearance of impropriety. Bar associations rather bitterly defend their monopoly on legal advice and representation.
I am not a legalist at all. I don't believe laws by their nature are inherently correct, nor the will of the majority, but if you don't think about consequences pragmatically you could ruin your life or the lives of your family. There are many things I might believe are right to do in the abstract that I don't do because the practical outcome of doing abstractly 'right' things in violation of the law would harm my interests and those of my family. Now in a life or death scenario analogous to that of harboring Jews during the Nazi regime as you suggest, I would find it harder to oppose my conscience than the law, but those scenarios are few and far between. The difference too is that is a matter of saving lives, not taking them.
So in the special case of special case where special history and special circumstances are applied, it might if a jury agrees be justifiable to shoot somebody skulking around your car.
...
Yeah, that's some pretty strong and sound legal advice right there. If I rolled my eyes any harder they might exit my skull. The point remains, Castle Doctrine does not mean you can shoot anybody on your property on a whim, or even a general suspicion. You must meet specific criteria of mind and circumstance and be prepared to defend it in open court to twelve good men and true. Castle Doctrine and deadly force in general are not things to be played with, taken lightly, or abused. Rash actors will get what they deserve.
Where 'conformism' is getting a enough people to agree to disregard everyone and everything else together, yes, but it's just scaling up the individual problem to a group problem. The difference between a person who hates homosexuals because of his personal interpretation of a religious text who goes on to commit murder on that pretext and a group of people who hate homosexuals because of a collective interpretation of a religious text who then go on to abuse the authority of state to execute the otherwise innocent on that pretext is purely organizational.
Reasonable people realize that they are not the sole arbiters of moral action, that some concessions need to be made in order to maintain a stable and productive society. I can't unilaterally decide who lives or who dies, no matter how sure I am of their guilt of some heinous crime, because if that were allowed society would devolve into barbarism.
Sparky, if you think they're going to shoot you, it's not defense of property anymore anyway, that simply becomes self-defense. You would need to have reason to believe that they were armed, which has heretofore not been assumed.
I did not miss that, at what point do you think somebody merely being suspicious around your car constitutes 'substantial risk'? Especially when you're the one with a drawn and sighted firearm?
Yes, that is present in (2); however, you're missing the critical little ' and ' which includes (3)(A) wherein the person must demonstrate that he could reasonably believe that there was no other method by which the property could be protected or recovered.
When you mention a garage, that changes the scenario to home invasion. Without that information one can only assume the car is simply parked on your property, not necessarily in an occupied structure. My point remains, you can't just shoot somebody for walking up to your car. You can just shoot somebody for breaking down your door, assuming you don't have reason to believe they are law enforcement. There are cases where law enforcement might break down your door without a warrant, such as if a suspect had managed to flee the scene of a murder and was observed to break into your house. Whether or not you were in a position to dispatch such a person the LEOs wouldn't know, they would assume that such a suspect would represent an imminent threat to others and proceed without need of a warrant. That would not justify you shooting them for following the suspect through whatever means he had utilized to break into the house.
I am not a lawyer and the previous should not be construed as legal advice.
The only reading of that law that would apply here is categorizing the placement of a tracker as 'criminal mischief' and would still be subject to the burden of proving that "the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means". So, yeah, not so much 'in many cases'.
I am not a lawyer, the previous is not legal advice, but it's still better advice than the parent.
What is retarded is that he is being modded 'informative' for his complete ignorance of the conditions and responsibilities of Castle Doctrine.
Dan667 has already said what I was going to say. This is why people are afraid of Muslims and other religious fundamentalists. All you apparently need is to feel what you're doing is right and then you ignore everyone and everything else. It's a dangerous mindset that is divorced from reality and responsibility by design. It is the very mindset that has enabled and empowered all of the atrocities committed in the name of religion, and for that matter, ideologies in general.
That is not how Castle Doctrine works, and you do a great disservice to all responsible gun owners by spreading such FUD, not to mention being a poor example of character. There would be insufficient evidence from somebody just walking up to your vehicle, stooping down, and then walking away for you to 'reasonably believe' that they were committing an act sufficient enough to warrant a response of deadly force. You would not *ever* get that to stand up in court.
People like you are an embarrassment to those of us who work hard to get things like Castle Doctrine in place, and then you interpret it, in complete ignorance, to mean that you can kill any person for any reason so long as they have a foot over your property line. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a false flag plant of gun control advocates out to make gun owners look bad.
Pfff motorcycle... bah! It should be a 1960s Corvette like in the opening to Heavy Metal.
I realize after the fact that where I said Pluto I meant Hades. They're the same thing of course, but it looks silly to switch from Greek context to Roman.
The difference is the origin of power, not 'who is in charge'. In Abrahamic monotheisms, the 'one true god' is the source of all things and all power. All other supernatural beings have whatever power they have because Allah/Yahweh consciously willed them to have that power, and they exercise that power as part of his grand design at his pleasure. It is also understood that Yahweh/Allah could revoke any or all power from any created thing at any time by no more than another conscious act of will.
This is contrasted with polytheisms where gods have power in-and-of-themselves. Zeus may have been the leader of the Greek pantheon, but he could not strip the power from Pluto for instance (though gods can kill each other, it's not in the Abrahamic act-of-will sense but rather a visceral physical battle). The inability of the gods to affect each other or even use powers exclusively possessed of one another is obvious in some of the major mythologies such as when Demeter refused to allow any crops to grow or the analogous case where Amaterasu hid in a cave in a huff and plunged the world into darkness. Until these gods were placated by the other gods there was no way for crops to grow or the sun to rise because those were exclusive powers of the relative deities.
To bring this example full circle, let's suppose, purely hypothetically, that Allah/Yahweh appointed an angel to move the sun around, and then another angel got jealous and killed the first angel. Because of the nature of Abrahamic monotheism that wouldn't be a problem. The power to move the sun wasn't intrinsic to the angel, but just a delegative grant from the one and only source of power, who could then just appoint a different angel to do the same thing. Monotheism does not require that there be only one supernatural entity, only that there be only one ultimate supernatural power which assigns/delegates the powers of any lesser supernatural beings.
Too bad that the world doesn't care how you personally define monotheism, especially since by your definition there are practically no monotheistic religions. Islam has djinns and angels just as Judaism and Christianity have angels and devils. The only religion I can think of that might match your description is that of Atenism, and that may only be because the supernatural bogeymen of that short lived sect are lost to history. The fact is that it's very hard for religions to have meaning outside of conflict, and that conflict is naturally between supernatural forces of opposite moral alignment. If you think everything allegedly supernatural is a 'god', you're simply ignoring the context from almost every religious system known to history. At the end of the day it's a debate about categorizing the imaginary, and is no more productive than debating the number of angels who could proceed to get funky on the head of a pin, but one can still be ignorant about the imaginary where such is categorized by its believers. You fall into that group.