War Room Lounge v159: Starbucks vs Dunkin Donuts

[Prokofievian]

For me its not about the value of the specific property, its about the value and principle of property rights. That's doesn't mean I think you should have absolute right to kill someone if they are taking your property, there should be an escalation that ends at but does not begin with lethal force. Something like verbal warning->warning shot->lethal force. It doesn't have to be exactly that but there should be some attempt made to diffuse the situation without resorting to lethal force immediately. But if they persist I think you should be allowed to use lethal force. In the case of Tony Martin he should've warned them, perhaps fired a warning shot(though I understand not wanting to do that in your own home), and if they persisted after that I think he should be within his rights to use lethal force though something tells me they would've bailed after he warned them and showed them he was armed.

One has implications for the other, because property rights don't exist in a vacuum. They exist in a context where there are other rights, and thus when the various rights come into conflict you have to decide which take precedence over the other. This is a valuation. A valuation can be done in kind, or through some medium, but deciding ''this over that'' is a statement of value, inherently.

The chain of lethal force that you described is morally valid, IMO, but it still hinges on the defence of yourself, not the property. You are entitled to the defence of the property, and they escalate to a situation which requires the use of deadly force. But take for example someone who steals an item from you, and is fleeing, you can't just escalate while looking at their fleeing backs, all like ''hey stop. Final warning, stop or I'll shoot.'' and then you shoot. That's murder.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I said especially, not exclusively, for a reason there tho. And i'm talking about broad cultural value; inner city shooting, while definitely an aspect of this, is pretty resoundingly condemned. If anything, that's kinda getting at part of my point. You could make the argument that urban violence is an attempt at masculine affirmation as well, but it is received very negatively imo. Vigilantes get a lot of positive representation in our culture, however, and it's because the violence fulfills a fantasy while sliding right into a hierarchy of acceptable aggression. I read an interesting short article from a comic book artist speculating on why reactionaries just love the Punisher, for example, when there's literally a character named Captain America lol.

It is quite worrying how much some LEO types love the Punisher even though they really aren't familiar with the character (especially his history as a villain) and just know that he "kills bad guys" and has a cool skull logo they put on their stuff.

Yeah that's why I don't care for the Punisher but in defense of those not taken by Captain America he's kind of a basic hero that comes from the early era of comic book superheroes. Most people wouldn't say their favorite superhero is Superman either. Really the only consistently popular hero from that era is probably Batman.

Indeed, yes @senri

You ever watch Jennifer's Body? Low key one of my favorite movies of that year and a real sleeper. One of her best performances that I've seen, though I wasn't someone who followed her career. The part was just perfect for her, its basically about a Stacy who becomes a literal man eater and Megan Fox oozes that Stacy vibe. Best scene of the film

^That's a top tier girl on girl scene right there. Girls who make out at parties are hot and God bless em but they're doing it partly for the audience. What's even better are two girls who are seemingly straight passing and and have only had sexual experiences with guys but are really close and have an unconscious, latent attraction for one another. Then at some point later in their lives during some private, intimate moment it comes to a head and they share an intensely intimate sexual experience. They don't talk about before or after but they always remember it fondly and every once in a while look at each other in the company of others and undress each other with a look that says "hey remember that one time?"

Stuff like this is probably why one of my friends says I have the sexuality of a lesbian.

 

[skysolo]

Prime example of zero leadership being displayed by our elected officials.

You are a public servant and this is your public. Nah, it's better to ignore them then tweet about them later like a coward.

 

[Islam Imamate]

One has implications for the other, because property rights don't exist in a vacuum. They exist in a context where there are other rights, and thus when the various rights come into conflict you have to decide which take precedence over the other. This is a valuation. A valuation can be done in kind, or through some medium, but deciding ''this over that'' is a statement of value, inherently.

Oh for sure, I'm just articulating my take on it. Perhaps its a bit extreme but that's how I see it.

The chain of lethal force that you described is morally valid, IMO, but it still hinges on the defence of yourself, not the property. You are entitled to the defence of the property, and they escalate to a situation which requires the use of deadly force. But take for example someone who steals an item from you, and is fleeing, you can't just escalate while looking at their fleeing backs, all like ''hey stop. Final warning, stop or I'll shoot.'' and then you shoot. That's murder.

I disagree, I think you've tried to diffuse the situation without resorting to lethal force you should be allowed to shoot them in that case even in the back as they flee. Not saying that's the ideal thing to do or what I would so necessarily. I'd like to think I'd let them take my wallet or whatever it is they took from me without killing them, if not out of a conscious moral decision than from an instinctive hesitation to take a life. But I think you should have that right as part of your property rights. Their right to life was forfeited when they encroached on your property rights and failed to heed your fair warning.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

PA was decided by 44k votes in 2016

 

[Prokofievian]

I disagree, I think you've tried to diffuse the situation without resorting to lethal force you should be allowed to shoot them in that case even in the back as they flee. Not saying that's the ideal thing to do or what I would so necessarily. I'd like to think I'd let them take my wallet or whatever it is they took from me without killing them, if not out of a conscious moral decision than from an instinctive hesitation to take a life. But I think you should have that right as part of your property rights. Their right to life was forfeited when they encroached on your property rights and failed to heed your fair warning.

Which right do you think is logically prior: the right to property, or the right to life?

 

[Rational Poster]

@Rational Poster you're in NJ correct?

What's it to you?

 

[Prokofievian]

What's it to you?

Sounds like something someone from NJ would say.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Which right do you think is logically prior: the right to property, or the right to life?

In general the right to life but not always. In this context your right to life means the person defending their property should not escalate to the use of lethal force immediately but give you a reasonable and fair warning to desist before doing so.

 

[Fawlty]

Why does Cubo think he's still POTWR? Has he finally broken inside? https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/potwr-2020-yey-or-nay-on-community-policing.4130050

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

What's it to you?

Are you familiar with Action Park?

 

[Prokofievian]

In general the right to life but not always. In this context your right to life means the person defending their property should not escalate to the use of lethal force immediately but give you a reasonable and fair warning to desist before doing so.

I disagree. I think property rights are derived from the right to life (and not even necessarily so, IMO), and are thus subordinate. In order for an encroachment on property rights to justify the extinguishing of another's right to life, the encroachment on property must constitute a threat to one's right to life. I think this is both logically clean, and also leads to the best practical outcomes.

I don't think the temporal nature of the person's right to life here bears a lot of weight. I don't think you could derive it from something that you take to self evident. I'd be interested to read your attempt to do so though.

 

[sickc0d3r]

For me its not about the value of the specific property, its about the value and principle of property rights. That's doesn't mean I think you should have absolute right to kill someone if they are taking your property, there should be an escalation that ends at but does not begin with lethal force. Something like verbal warning->warning shot->lethal force. It doesn't have to be exactly that but there should be some attempt made to diffuse the situation without resorting to lethal force immediately. But if they persist I think you should be allowed to use lethal force. In the case of Tony Martin he should've warned them, perhaps fired a warning shot(though I understand not wanting to do that in your own home), and if they persisted after that I think he should be within his rights to use lethal force though something tells me they would've bailed after he warned them and showed them he was armed.

Unless they break into your home while you're not there right? Which is more common in America, probably not unrelated to our gun rights and castle doctrine. As Kendrick would say, "from 9-5 we know its vacant ya bish". So let's say you're normally out between 9-5 but one day you're not, you call off sick or coming home early. And you run into someone breaking into your house on their way out with a family heirloom, therefore you can reasonably assume they're not there to harm you but rather to rob you while you're at work. Should you be allowed to use lethal force or no?

Or here's a different one for ya. Let's say you have been mugged in public over and over again. This would obviously leave someone feeling very insecure in public and so you can see how that might have a negative effect on society and its a reality in countries like Brazil and South Africa. So let's say you are armed but someone pulls a knife on you and asks for your second wallet you've bought this month. You put it on the ground and step away and right as they go to grab it you pull your gun on them and tell them to back off. You've given them a verbal warning and brandished the firearm, a clear attempt to diffuse the situation without resorting immediately to lethal force. They still take your wallet and run. Should you have the right to shoot them? I say yes, in the back if you must.

People should have the right to defend their property and having secure property rights, part of which to me is the right to defend it, is part of any healthy and prosperous society. The more important part of that is the more boring legal stuff like what you can defend in court and so on. But this type of stuff matters too.

Actually, pretty sure in most states you can use non lethal force to prevent loss of property, and then lethal force if they retaliate and you fear great bodily harm. Also, if you reasonably believe the use of non lethal force would end very badly for you, you can then use lethal force.

 

[Rational Poster]

Are you familiar with Action Park?

That shit was closed before I was old enough to go.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I disagree. I think property rights are derived from the right to life (and not even necessarily so, IMO), and are thus subordinate. In order for an encroachment on property rights to justify the extinguishing of another's right to life, the encroachment on property must constitute a threat to one's right to life. I think this is both logically clean, and also leads to the best practical outcomes.

I don't think the temporal nature of the person's right to life here bears a lot of weight. I don't think you could derive it from something that you take to self evident. I'd be interested to read your attempt to do so though.

Not sure I agree but I don't feel that strongly about it and I think that's a pretty reasonable, defensible position nonetheless.

 

[Islam Imamate]

@Prokofievian

Once upon a time I might've considered making a thread on this topic we're discussing here but in the WR of 2020 I don't think a thread title "Should you be allowed to shoot a thief who has stolen from you and is running away?" would turn out very well.

 

[Prokofievian]

@Prokofievian

Once upon a time I might've considered making a thread on this topic we're discussing here but in the WR of 2020 I don't think a thread title "Should you be allowed to shoot a thief who has stolen from you and is running away?" would turn out very well.

It was a refreshing conversation, I thought. It's kind of sad that I think you're right.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

That shit was closed before I was old enough to go.

HBO Max has a Documentary on it called Class- Action Park, pretty entertaining

 

[Andy Capp]

No. When I ask a simple question, I expect a simple answer. Not to be fucked around.

LOL read your posts ITT and try saying that again unironically. Your panties are in a big bunch and no one gives a fuck. I don't take orders from you, son, and a little politeness goes a long way.

Chill and you'll find yourself telling others they're being dicks a lot less often. We're not here to serve you. After being here a year, you ought to be familiar with the search function.

 

[Andy Capp]

Yeah that's why I don't care for the Punisher but in defense of those not taken by Captain America he's kind of a basic hero that comes from the early era of comic book superheroes. Most people wouldn't say their favorite superhero is Superman either. Really the only consistently popular hero from that era is probably Batman.

You ever watch Jennifer's Body? Low key one of my favorite movies of that year and a real sleeper. One of her best performances that I've seen, though I wasn't someone who followed her career. The part was just perfect for her, its basically about a Stacy who becomes a literal man eater and Megan Fox oozes that Stacy vibe. Best scene of the film

^That's a top tier girl on girl scene right there. Girls who make out at parties are hot and God bless em but they're doing it partly for the audience. What's even better are two girls who are seemingly straight passing and and have only had sexual experiences with guys but are really close and have an unconscious, latent attraction for one another. Then at some point later in their lives during some private, intimate moment it comes to a head and they share an intensely intimate sexual experience. They don't talk about before or after but they always remember it fondly and every once in a while look at each other in the company of others and undress each other with a look that says "hey remember that one time?"

Stuff like this is probably why one of my friends says I have the sexuality of a lesbian.

No, I don't even know who she is; the gif just seemed very @senri-appropriate. I hear you on the latter part. I think I must do some research.