MAMEWorld Forums - Welcome to the War Room

> No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you're making assertions that rights are
> "natural" and "God-given" without giving any backing for it besides the assertion.
> Others would claim that God grants no such right.
>

Well isn't that itself an assertion? I guess it is since it is a "claim". What about 'Free Will'? Do we have an agreement that everyone has free-will? Or is that also debatable?

> Well, Jesus was a pacifist...

There was also the time he overturned the tables in the temple and chased out the money changers for cheating people buying doves for sacrifices. Although, it says he 'drove' them out, and it could be said that he flogged them, using a rod.

I'm not saying this invalidates Jesus being a pacifist. This was in a house of worship and it was being desecrated by those doing wrong to others. Maybe this was a form of 'Justice'? I await your response Reverend Crabb.

> Yes, the world is fallen, and we can't actually achieve this ideal. Biblically, it's
> the original sin that lurks in the hearts of all sons/daughters of Adam. But trying
> to argue that the Bible advocates a society where you have to proverbially carry a
> big stick doesn't hold water..

There are offensive and defensive measures. I do wholeheartedly believe that self defense is a natural right. Be it in physical confrontations, or online debates on emulator forums. Right? How one chooses to protect themselves is a choice in and of itself.

Which of the following statement can you agree with?

There are times when lethal force may be required to stop an attacker.

It is never appropriate to use any lethal method to stop an attacker.

The idea is that when someone intends to put your life in danger, they are then forfeiting their own right to live. Or live freely... Which would mean going to prison, etc.

If I may share an anecdote... A cousin's ex-husbands younger brother... I'll use his 1st name, Paul. Paul's mother was dating a man... Long story short, whatever happened to the guy, one night he had called Pual's mother, saying he was going come over and kill her and Paul (this was left on their answering machine). Sure enough, he came out to her house, either drunk or on drugs... He tried to attack her, but Paul was there with a gun. He shot and killed the guy. He did go to jail or prison for a while. When he finally went to a trial for murder he was found not guilty because it was justified and in self-defense. They even had the evidence where he said he was going to hurt/kill them. So it was no contest.

Yes. The Bibles says to turn the other cheek to those that do you wrong.... But I'm sure that's referring to those that are just generally assholes. Not people trying to spill your blood. There's a big difference, I would think. ......Maybe not.

>
> There's a difference between justice and vindictiveness. The Old Testament law
> emphasises proportionality of punishments. Also, if just Jesus' opinion isn't enough
> for you, you can find St Paul's admonition against vindictiveness in Romans 12:17-21:
>
> Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of
> everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with
> everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for
> it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary:
> “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In
> doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but
> overcome evil with good.
>
> The citations in the passage come from Deuteronomy 32:35 and Proverbs 25:21-22.
> There's definitely a strong element of leaving people to suffer divine retribution
> there. This isn't unique to Christianity - some forms of Buddhism teach that enough
> negative actions lead to you being demoted to a lower, hell-like realm on
> reincarnation.
>
> There's a reason we don't support "mob justice" - we don't recognise it as actual
> justice. There's definitely an argument for keeping unreformed violent criminals out
> of society for the safety of everyone else, but ultimately, what does vindictiveness
> achieve? Whatever you do to a murderer doesn't bring back the murder victim. And
> considering the number of death row inmates who have their sentences overturned, it
> seems modern legal systems are more wired for producing convictions than getting the
> right person.
>

Another verse that comes to mind... It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.

That seems like a pretty extreme response to me. A quick death would be far more merciful. Is that vindictive, or justified? Or maybe it's irrelevant.

> Well the proof's in the pudding. The US has a far higher homicide rate than
> Australia. The Philippines, another place where people carry handguns everywhere,
> regularly has bar fights escalating into gunfights in major cities. It's all very
> well for you to talk about it in the abstract like this, but you haven't given a
> single data point that actually supports your position.

https://ijr.com/2016/01/510415-10-charts-that-put-obamas-gun-violence-town-hall-in-perspective/

It seems that the rate for gun ownership is the highest in the U.S compared to the rest of the world. But the rates for homicides are below countries such as Brazil, Mexico, and Russia.

LEVEL-4