Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control

I love when people bring up lameass arguments like this. They think they are making some huge point but the whole point has no bearing on the argument or reality. No one here could ever be in a position to do anything about Hitler, or Stalin or Pol Pot or George Bush. Therefore, the question has no value. It is easy for us to look back in hindsight, but to ask whether someone would have killed Hitler is ludicrous. There are no time machines, this is just an attempt to make some lameass cheap point. No matter how anyone answers has no bearing on this argument or the reality of what Hitler did. Maybe next time bring a real argument to your post.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Because we only got one life, and taking that away is not smething I think other people should do. What ifs don't matter, remember. Renders the rest of your little rant moot. Ooh...sarcasm.... No. I don't believe in hell, or heaven. Nor do I think anyone deserves eternal torment, whatever they've done.

---

I hunt for the truth

Well said. Besides, even if someone had known what was to come, there would have been a million ways of preventing Hitler to do what he did, other than killing him.Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Nowhere in this thread, or anywhere else, I've advocated indiscriminately shooting people or killing all criminals or whatever else you made me out to stand for. I realise that black & white caricatures are easy to counter and dismiss but show some integrity.Anyhow, my ethics are based on libertarian principles: in a nutshell, people should be free to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't cause un-conscented harm to others. Individuals should have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference from other individuals or the state. Solid property rights should be a crucial part of recognising individual liberty. The only proper use of enforcement/coercion should be to protect individual liberty and nothing more. One person's individual liberty cannot be used as an excuse to compromise or violate another person's individual liberty.Now if you apply those principles to our specific scenario you'll hopefully understand where I stand: noone should have the right to violate my individual liberty by invading my home. The right to defend my family and property -and by extension my liberty- from harm, without endangering it, should be paramount. The intruder's individual liberty to invade my home cannot be used as an excuse or cannot take precedence over my own and my family's.I hope that's now clearer.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

No, because that would violate other people's rights and liberties. See my reply to Rahvin in Message 79.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Their rights and liberties interfere with my rights and liberties. Now what?Also, you state in your response to Rahvin: So, my rights to protect my loved ones with that device are paramount.Edited by Huntard, : No reason given.

---

I hunt for the truth

How so? Please explain! Yes, but not by violating the rights of other people who haven't interfered with yours.Nice selective-quoting BTW.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Their rights and liberties say I can't use my rights and liberties to defend my family as I see fit. A liberty you called paramount. But they are, by not allowing me to use the device. Your post is two posts above mine, anyone can read the entire thing there.

---

I hunt for the truth

*blink!* (...sorry Rrhain!)You did not just say that, did you? You didn't really claim that hypothetical questions are irrelevant because they don't affect reality, did you?Here's what West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2 defines as a hypothetical question:

quote:

---

A mixture of assumed or established facts and circumstances, developed in the form of a coherent and specific situation, which is presented to an expert witness at a trial to elicit his or her opinion.

---

And here's what Oral Arguments Before the Supreme Court: An Empirical Approach, Lawrence S. Wrightsman says on the matter

quote:

---

even 20 years ago hypothetical questions were recognised as a "way of life in today's Court", queries that every conscientious advocate must expect. Justices relish hypotheticals.

---

So as you can see, as long as they're relevant and non-distracting, they are a valid debating technique and widely used within the Justice system. They're good enough for an expert witness at a trial but they're not good enough for you! My oh my, what high standards you must have! No, you....confused individual,you...the question wasn't posed to pass judgement on the reality of what Hitler did, it was posed trying to elicit Huntard's opinion and -hopefully- expose his hypocrisy. Which is extremely relevant to the argument. Maybe next time google up 'debating methods' before making silly and ignorant comments on this board.Edited by Legend, : emphasis

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

So, when I post a "what if" question your response is: Yet when YOU ask one, they're suddenly a: I'm not following this logic.

---

I hunt for the truth

Not even if this life threatens to take yours? I dismissed your "What If" because it had nothing to do with the point I made about nuclear weapon proliferation acting as an effective deterrent. Your counter was (Message 64) : "What if Chroustjev (or Kennedy) had gone insane and launched the weapons?"If my point is that "something happened that supports my position", your saying "what if it hadn't happened?" adds nothing to the debate. It's distracting, irrelevant and circular reasoning. That's why I dismissed it.I, on the other hand, am trying to explore how deeply and genuinely you value human life by asking "Would you have killed Hitler if you had the chance?"well...?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I already answered this in my previous post (I'm catching up with the backlog). Here's what I said:I dismissed your "What If" because it had nothing to do with the point I made about nuclear weapon proliferation acting as an effective deterrent. Your counter was (Message 64) : "What if Chroustjev (or Kennedy) had gone insane and launched the weapons?"If my point is that "something happened that supports my position", your saying "what if it hadn't happened?" adds nothing to the debate. It's distracting, irrelevant and circular reasoning. That's why I dismissed it.I, on the other hand, am trying to explore how deeply and genuinely you value human life by asking "Would you have killed Hitler if you had the chance?"

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

But the only surefire, definite, 100% way of stopping him would be to kill him. Would you do it or would you rather take a chance with 20 million lives so that you can preserve your morality?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Do you even know what paramount means? Paramount - chief in importance or impact; supreme; preeminent:If you call something paramount you cannot then put a qualifier on it. So is the following paramount or not? It is best to know what words mean before you throw them around.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

You make my point so well. Did you read the part that says relevant and non-distracting. First how is Hitler at all relevant to a conversation about gun control? Second, how more distracting can you get than Hitler. See Godwin's Law.Also this is not a hypothetical.Again definition time. Hypothetical - Logic.
a. (of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence.
b. (of a proposition or syllogism) conditional.Something that is hypothetical is something that is highly conjectural or conditional. It is not something that is completely beyond reality.The reality is no one from here can go back in time and kill Hitler if they wanted to. No one that lived when Hitler was young could have known what was going to happen. This is not possible.Now lets define hypothesis since part of the definition of hypothetical uses the word hypothesis. Hypothesis -a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.Now
Premise -a basis, stated or assumed, on which reasoning proceeds.Asking if someone would go back in time and kill Hitler is not a hypothetical. It is a lameass attempt to make a lameass point. Nothing more, nothing less.Now if you are willing to concede how lameass this is, I will answer.No, I wouldn't. Do you know what the affects on the timeline this would have? Neither do I. Maybe a more competent, radical leader of a rearmed Germany would have emerged? Maybe that leader would have invaded England, put more effort into jet propulsion, developed the atomic bomb? Maybe without Hitler, Joe Stalin would have caused more deaths and chaos then he did?I stand by my point that for the various reasons invoking"would you have killed Hitler" is lameass and adds nothing to this or any debate.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts