The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
Who's at fault? NYC's GFW laws.
She should have packed and blown him away at the first credible threat.
She married him?
Hmm.. Probably too stupid to learn "The Four Rules". On second thought maybe it is a good thing she didn't arm herself...
I am 21 (as of the 18th) and I live at home. My mother is a Christian leftist and has brought me up in a Christian house, though I am a Christian right winger (extremely). I say to her that the bible believes in self defene and she agrees. I say that a person has moral duty to defend their own family and she agrees. She says to me that she would give her own life to protect her children, but I say that law should protect a person who kills in self defence, she can't agree with me. I think that she is insane as is anyone left wing. Somehow when it comes to stopping a murder, we need tolerance and kid gloves.
Weird story. I've heard that love is blind, but never in this way before...
And an excellent example of the State not being at fault for not protecting citizens.
horse-riding? I don't get the reference, Kevin.
Read up on the movie Zoo.
My dad used to absolutely hate getting called to help on a domestic. You never knew if you were walking into an argument that just required "Hold it down or else", or you'd wind up with the wife or girlfriend seeing the cuffs go on her 'man' and go nuts.
Damn near got killed one time in one of the latter.
That's the defining characteristic of leftism: the ability to hold two utterly contradictory views at once.
That's it, Sarah.
I once had a long discussion (not an argument, really, as it was quiet, thoughful, and civil) with a co-worker about self-defense. After many hours over many days, I got him to admit that he believed I did not have a right to prevent an attacker from killing me if my only means of preventing it was to kill him, even as his attack was underway. His only justification was "The Bible Says Thou Shalt Not Kill".
I stopped discussing anything with him. It was keeping me up nights.
DJ, if you ever decide to really tick him off, point out that the actual wording of that Commandment is 'Thou shalt not murder', a very different thing than 'kill'.
Not possible, Firehand, but that would be interesting. I last saw him in late 1976, as I left one department for another at my job. He was an old booger then, and would likely be about 90 or so now.
The exact meaning in English depends on who translates it from the original Hebrew, which I don't read. When I was very young, the framed poster on the wall of the church said "thou shalt not kill", but newer translations are (more or less) "you shall not murder".
Isn't it odd that these are the "Words of God", but there is disagreement as to what the words are, and even the Bible doesn't agree as to whether it was God or Moses who carved them into stone?
YHWH carved the first set. Moses went down the mountain, saw that Israel was sinner, and smashed the first set. He went back up the mountain to talk to YHWH, and had to carve the second set himself.
I'm not sure what your point is, but do you worry because people argue over the wording of other revered documents, such as the Constitution? I'd be worried if people didn't argue over what the language of the Bible means, especially when it comes to topics of life-and-death.
What you're talking about is the opinion of one religious guy who seems confused about his beliefs. There really is nothing in the Bible that proscribes against killing in self-defense. Remember, this is the same God that ordered the Israelites to do an awful lot of smiting back in the day. The vast majority of Christians (and Jews, at least in Israel) do not have a philosophical problem with killing in defense of self or others.
No, Sarah, my purpose was not to address the theological issues involved. It was simply to give a real-life example, from my own experience, that illustrated your statement, which I heartily agree with. The rest was simply a digression. Conversations are like that.
Roger, I beg to differ regarding the second set of tablets.
See Exodus 34:1
34:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.
See Exodus 34:27-28
34:27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
So, who wrote wrote upon the second set, Moses or God?
Maybe nobody knows :)
Maybe God held Moses' hand, and therefore they both wrote it, depending on your point of view.
I take a simpler view, Ben. He couldn't have gone forty days without eating and drinking!
Or did he eat meat and drink wine? Maybe nobody knows ...
Re the Hebrew phrasing of the Sixth Commandment:
The word is "tirtzach," or "tirSaH" depending on your pronunciation. At any rate, it literally means "murder." If it had meant "kill," the word would have been "taharog."
No question. End of story. "Murder" it is.
And it wouldn't make sense the other way, as a few of you mentioned. It is permissable to kill under certain circumstancesand sometimes mandatory.
I'm reminded of the old monk who discovered the original book in the basement that he and his predecessors had been copying, by hand, for generations. His response was, "Oh, crap! It said celebrate!"
I wonder what else King James' translator got wrong?