The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin

[PDS]

Ayn Rand on gun control:

"I do not know how the issue is to be resolved how to protect yourself without giving you the privilege to kill another at whim"

- from Ayn Rand Answers

Then who is to protect you and what is to stop them from killing others at whim?

Ayn was wrong on a number of issues and this was one of them.

While I don't trust Rand material edited after her death, she was seemingly clueless on this subject (self defense). If you are in a society then the collective gets the guns, but if you are at war with it you can have and use them (see AS).

--Brant

I think gender had something to do with it. Women are far more likely to be more gun averse than men. This is also why the gun control issue wholly belongs to liberalism, as it is a feminized ideology for emasculated males. Although in AS, Ayn Rand's reason prevailed when she demonstrated how a gun was used as a necessary tool for good people to prevail.

Are you sure that's the best example of the use of reason and a gun?

I guess that situation worked out fine. For everybody but the security guard...

[moralist]

Ayn Rand on gun control:

"I do not know how the issue is to be resolved how to protect yourself without giving you the privilege to kill another at whim"

- from Ayn Rand Answers

Then who is to protect you and what is to stop them from killing others at whim?

Ayn was wrong on a number of issues and this was one of them.

While I don't trust Rand material edited after her death, she was seemingly clueless on this subject (self defense). If you are in a society then the collective gets the guns, but if you are at war with it you can have and use them (see AS).

--Brant

I think gender had something to do with it. Women are far more likely to be more gun averse than men. This is also why the gun control issue wholly belongs to liberalism, as it is a feminized ideology for emasculated males. Although in AS, Ayn Rand's reason prevailed when she demonstrated how a gun was used as a necessary tool for good people to prevail.

Are you sure that's the best example of the use of reason and a gun?

I guess that situation worked out fine. For everybody but the security guard...

No. Just one of many.

The security guard personally experienced the consequences of his own values.

[PDS]

Ayn Rand on gun control:

"I do not know how the issue is to be resolved how to protect yourself without giving you the privilege to kill another at whim"

- from Ayn Rand Answers

Then who is to protect you and what is to stop them from killing others at whim?

Ayn was wrong on a number of issues and this was one of them.

While I don't trust Rand material edited after her death, she was seemingly clueless on this subject (self defense). If you are in a society then the collective gets the guns, but if you are at war with it you can have and use them (see AS).

--Brant

I think gender had something to do with it. Women are far more likely to be more gun averse than men. This is also why the gun control issue wholly belongs to liberalism, as it is a feminized ideology for emasculated males. Although in AS, Ayn Rand's reason prevailed when she demonstrated how a gun was used as a necessary tool for good people to prevail.

Are you sure that's the best example of the use of reason and a gun?

I guess that situation worked out fine. For everybody but the security guard...

No. Just one of many.

The security guard personally experienced the consequences of his own values.

Perhaps. This has never been a hill I wanted to fight on. Too steep, bad terrain, etc.

Let's just say that it might have been a tad less jarring if Dagny had merely knocked the guy out with the butt of her gun, or otherwise pistol whipped him...Even a good kick in the balls may have been in order.

[moralist]

Ayn Rand on gun control:

"I do not know how the issue is to be resolved how to protect yourself without giving you the privilege to kill another at whim"

- from Ayn Rand Answers

Then who is to protect you and what is to stop them from killing others at whim?

Ayn was wrong on a number of issues and this was one of them.

While I don't trust Rand material edited after her death, she was seemingly clueless on this subject (self defense). If you are in a society then the collective gets the guns, but if you are at war with it you can have and use them (see AS).

--Brant

I think gender had something to do with it. Women are far more likely to be more gun averse than men. This is also why the gun control issue wholly belongs to liberalism, as it is a feminized ideology for emasculated males. Although in AS, Ayn Rand's reason prevailed when she demonstrated how a gun was used as a necessary tool for good people to prevail.

Are you sure that's the best example of the use of reason and a gun?

I guess that situation worked out fine. For everybody but the security guard...

No. Just one of many.

The security guard personally experienced the consequences of his own values.

Perhaps. This has never been a hill I wanted to fight on. Too steep, bad terrain, etc.

Let's just say that it might have been a tad less jarring if Dagny had merely knocked the guy out with the butt of her gun, or otherwise pistol whipped him...Even a good kick in the balls may have been in order.

We each pick our own external battles to fight. A gun is to an individual what a nuclear bomb is to a nation... a last resort... but an option which must always be on the table.

It's difficult to knock a security guard out with the butt of a gun when they are standing in front of you blocking a door. Dagny left the choice of living or dying completely up to the guard, and chose to use the finality of that encounter to demonstrate the workings of the bureaucratic mind.

[Brant Gaede]

I was thinking more of when Francisco used guns to defend Rearden and his mills than the security guard. We did that security guard to death on OL already. There's no need to put it in this thread, but what Dagny did was an act of war. She was by then x-society.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

Gee, I hope he killed him. No heroics otherwise.

His proudest moment was saving his own life... Would you have preferred he was killed instead?

[Peter]

Michael wrote:

The prosecution purposely fought to have an all woman jury because according to male-female profiling, women are inherently more moved by the death of a teenager than men are.

end quote

This is a question for everyone. A few days ago, Jerry wrote about several dark complexioned people like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams who did not react in a knee jerk fashion to the Zimmerman verdict. However, if you were charged with a crime against a black person would you be comfortable with a black person on YOUR jury?

I would not. I do not think I would be judged fairly by a black person. I think blacks are very prejudiced to the point that they care nothing about justice. If it is a black and a white then the black is right in their way of thinking. I am not implying that the reverse has never been the case, especially in times past. But today, I think most whites are capable of listening to the evidence and convicting or exonerating a black person accused of a crime against a white person, while I would not trust a black person on a jury.

That being said I do not like “profiling” if it means blacks are pulled over by the police for no cause. A black lady on CNN mentioned that her black gardener gets pulled over about twice a month. And I know a black junk dealer who gets pulled over several times a month to have his “cargo” checked. That would infuriate me.

Peter

[Dglgmut]

White people are afraid to be labeled "racist". Black people are not.

[moralist]

I was thinking more of when Francisco used guns to defend Rearden and his mills than the security guard. We did that security guard to death on OL already. There's no need to put it in this thread, but what Dagny did was an act of war. She was by then x-society.

--Brant

Sorry, Brant... that must have been discusses before I came here because I didn't see it.

Greg

[moralist]

Michael wrote:

The prosecution purposely fought to have an all woman jury because according to male-female profiling, women are inherently more moved by the death of a teenager than men are.

end quote

This is a question for everyone. A few days ago, Jerry wrote about several dark complexioned people like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams who did not react in a knee jerk fashion to the Zimmerman verdict. However, if you were charged with a crime against a black person would you be comfortable with a black person on YOUR jury?

I would not. I do not think I would be judged fairly by a black person. I think blacks are very prejudiced to the point that they care nothing about justice. If it is a black and a white then the black is right in their way of thinking. I am not implying that the reverse has never been the case, especially in times past. But today, I think most whites are capable of listening to the evidence and convicting or exonerating a black person accused of a crime against a white person, while I would not trust a black person on a jury.

That being said I do not like “profiling” if it means blacks are pulled over by the police for no cause. A black lady on CNN mentioned that her black gardener gets pulled over about twice a month. And I know a black junk dealer who gets pulled over several times a month to have his “cargo” checked. That would infuriate me.

Peter

For the percentage of the population they represent, blacks commit a higher percentage of murders. And more blacks are murdered by other blacks than by whites. Three quarters of all black babies born have no father. So here's where you'll find the most murderers. It all comes down to having rotten values regardless of skin color. Most imprisoned felons have no father. It's no mystery.

[Brant Gaede]

All black babies have fathers. Felons, too.

--Brant

whites are more problematic

[George H. Smith]

In his Second Treatise, John Locke considered the issue of whether we have the right to use deadly force against a burglar who invades our home. His answer was an unequivocal yes, because we may reasonably assume that someone who is willing to invade a home is also willing to kill anyone he finds in that home, should he deem that necessary, because the burglar has demonstrated through his action that he has no regard for the rights of others. If this is not the case, then the responsibility for the error lies with the burglar, not with the resident.

This is sound reasoning that applies to a wide range of cases, including the Zimmerman case. If someone has you pinned and is pounding your head into the ground and punching you, then you do not have the responsibility to read his mind in the hope that he will stop before he kills or seriously injures you. If he initiated the conflict, then he assumes the risk of his action. There are some gray areas, obviously, but not when the assault continues for at least 40 seconds, which is the amount of time that Zimmerman was recorded screaming for help.

I know this issue has been discussed in detail on the lengthy thread, but I wanted to add my two cents.

Ghs

[moralist]

All black babies have fathers. Felons, too.

--Brant

whites are more problematic

You're confusing sperm donors with fathers.

[Brant Gaede]

All black babies have fathers. Felons, too.

--Brant

whites are more problematic

You're confusing sperm donors with fathers.

So, the babies and felons had sperm donors?

--Brant

what sperm bank did they use?

I think you did the confusing; having messed up on the parallel parking you keep moving your car around instead of starting over

[PDS]

All black babies have fathers. Felons, too.

--Brant

whites are more problematic

You're confusing sperm donors with fathers.

So, the babies and felons had sperm donors?

--Brant

what sperm bank did they use?

I think you did the confusing; having messed up on the parallel parking you keep moving your car around instead of starting over

He was making a joke, Brant.

[PDS]

In his Second Treatise, John Locke considered the issue of whether we have the right to use deadly force against a burglar who invades our home. His answer was an unequivocal yes, because we may reasonably assume that someone who is willing to invade a home is also willing to kill anyone he finds in that home, should he deem that necessary, because the burglar has demonstrated through his action that he has no regard for the rights of others. If this is not the case, then the responsibility for the error lies with the burglar, not with the resident.

This is sound reasoning that applies to a wide range of cases, including the Zimmerman case. If someone has you pinned and is pounding your head into the ground and punching you, then you do not have the responsibility to read his mind in the hope that he will stop before he kills or seriously injures you. If he initiated the conflict, then he assumes the risk of his action. There are some gray areas, obviously, but not when the assault continues for at least 40 seconds, which is the amount of time that Zimmerman was recorded screaming for help.

I know this issue has been discussed in detail on the lengthy thread, but I wanted to add my two cents.

Ghs

Ghs:

May I state the obvious and say that we should pay 3 cents for your 2 cents any time?

[My money is where my mouth is: I have purchased but have not yet read your latest book].

[moralist]

All black babies have fathers. Felons, too.

--Brant

whites are more problematic

You're confusing sperm donors with fathers.

So, the babies and felons had sperm donors?

--Brant

what sperm bank did they use?

I think you did the confusing; having messed up on the parallel parking you keep moving your car around instead of starting over

He was making a joke, Brant.

Oh, I was quite serious...

Irresponsible inseminators aren't fathers.

They aren't even men,

They're just males.

Men have values.

Males have only gender.

[Selene]

Oh, I was quite serious...

Irresponsible inseminators aren't fathers.

They aren't even men,

They're just males.

Men have values.

Males have only gender.

Greg:

Out of curiosity, do you have any children?

A...

[Darrell Hougen]

Leftist poses as Zimmerman supporter:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/07/busted-left-wing-plant-at-houston-pro-zimmerman-rally-is-far-left-activist/

Darrell

[moralist]

Oh, I was quite serious...

Irresponsible inseminators aren't fathers.

They aren't even men,

They're just males.

Men have values.

Males have only gender.

Greg:

Out of curiosity, do you have any children?

A...

Yes... and I'm a Grandpa.

[Brant Gaede]

... and I'm a Grandpa.

Hi, Gramps!

--Brant

beware the argumentum ad grampium!

just dogs and cats

[Selene]

The only minority on the all-female jury that voted to acquit George Zimmerman said today that Zimmerman "got away with murder" for killing Trayvon Martin and feels she owes an apology Martin's parents.

"You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty," said the woman who was identified only as Juror B29 during the trial. "But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence."

She said the jury was following Florida law and the evidence, she said, did not prove murder.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-juror-murder/story?id=19770659

[moralist]

"You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty," said the woman who was identified only as Juror B29 during the trial. "But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence."

There is little in this world more immorally unreliable than the feelings of hearts. Thank God the justice system was originally created by men who understood the objective truth of subjective feelings.

[caroljane]

New flash, it has just been announced that Toronto the Good has the lowest per-capita crime rate in Canada.

And the national crime rate is the lowest since 1972, although I may have misheard that part in my excitement and relief that Dggl can now walk the mean streets with less apprehension.

[caroljane]

Caution to WSS though: Steer clear of Kelowna!