oce 🐆

I try to contribute to things getting better, with sourced information, OC and polite rational skepticism.
Disagreeing with a point ≠ supporting the opposite side, I support rationality.
Let’s discuss to make things better sustainably.
Always happy to question our beliefs.

  • 6 Posts
  • 408 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 7th, 2023

help-circle










  • The point of the “moment of aggression” is that there is no way any democratically legitimated power can protect you immediately in the moment of a physical aggression. Unlike an unfair insurance system where you should be able to get legal protection and sue to claim your rights. If the system doesn’t protect one’s rights enough, then one should work on improving it through getting involved in the democratic process. Are they voting? Are they demonstrating? Have they done everything they could to support the politicians that defend their values, or risked themselves to carry the burden of becoming one? Killing people is just going to illegitimate your opinion, and also probably negatively impact the other people who share it too.

    Any intervention on society, with a goal to impact it, is political, I don’t know what surprises you there.




  • In my country, physical self-defense is relevant to the moment of the aggression and is required to be proportional (which is complicated, I concede). If you later go look for the aggressor to exercise your right to “self-defense”, that’s vengeance and personal justice, not self-defense anymore. This is usually forbidden in democratic countries because it could have a lot of negative effects of society.
    Overall, unless the laws and logic are very different in the USA, I don’t think this could be considered self-defense. This is also not going to stop the abuse by insurance companies since thousands of people can replace this guy, so it’s more about sending a message, isn’t it. What do we usually call the method of killing people to send a political message?