Originally posted by twhiteheadEfforts to define people as either violent or not violent is a useless circular pastime, and also incoherent if you're going to define their acts (armed robbery) as violent but then, for some reason, define their nature as something else.
That is not what I said. You seem to have difficulty following a conversation.
If you came to my house and started breaking my windows, I might first threaten you and then forcibly stop you. But that is not the same thing as saying I am a violent person or that house ownership has made me violent.
Similarly a robber that holds someone up at gun point is ...[text shortened]... be. Depending on your definition, the act of robbery at gun point could be called a violent act.
Illegally and intentionally threatening someone with death if they don't give you stuff is, in itself, an act of violence. People who do that should go to jail.
Originally posted by SleepyguyWell, the original question was whether or not being poor causes people to become violent. I interpreted that as him defining people as violent.
Efforts to define people as either violent or not violent is a useless circular pastime,
Illegally and intentionally threatening someone with death if they don't give you stuff is, in itself, an act of violence. People who do that should go to jail.
I agree they should go to jail, and I agree it can be called an act of violence. I disagree that a person who does it can be automatically called a 'violent person'.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadOk fair enough. I don't care what you call them if they're in jail and prevented from doing further violence.
Well, the original question was whether or not being poor causes people to become violent. I interpreted that as him defining people as violent.
Illegally and intentionally threatening someone with death if they don't give you stuff is, in itself, an act of violence. People who do that should go to jail.
I agree they should go to jail, and ...[text shortened]... f violence. I disagree that a person who does it can be automatically called a 'violent person'.[/b]
Originally posted by twhiteheadPlease, your view is through rose colored glasses. Someone who points a gun threatening to shoot if you don't turn over your money is not violent. Try saying no.
That is not what I said. You seem to have difficulty following a conversation.
If you came to my house and started breaking my windows, I might first threaten you and then forcibly stop you. But that is not the same thing as saying I am a violent person or that house ownership has made me violent.
Similarly a robber that holds someone up at gun point is ...[text shortened]... be. Depending on your definition, the act of robbery at gun point could be called a violent act.
Simply breaking your windows is violent enough for you to respond with violence in kind. I would be entirely justified in shooting an armed robber who threatened me with a gun. What you want me to give him the first shot?
Originally posted by normbenignWhat makes you think, from anything I said, that I would want you to give him the first shot?
Simply breaking your windows is violent enough for you to respond with violence in kind. I would be entirely justified in shooting an armed robber who threatened me with a gun. What you want me to give him the first shot?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou seem to be reluctant to call someone committing armed robbery violent? Did I misread what you said? Threatening violence is violent, if the threat is rationally believable and real.
What makes you think, from anything I said, that I would want you to give him the first shot?
That is the only justification for a citizen or police officer responding with deadly force. It is a matter of believing the threat to be real.