Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:18:24 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS

>From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

Robert said, a while back (before he accused me of not paying
attention):

>  > Many, quite a few, several, at least a couple of states have what has becom
>  > known as the "Make My Day" law.  Basically, they provide for a legal defens
>  > for using deadly force when a homeowner fears for his/her safety.

I pointed out:

> > >Using deadly force when a homeowner fears for his/her safety, compared
> > >to using deadly force when any resident of a house sees any uninvited
> > >person his/her house, whether s/he fears for his/her safety or not.

> > >Perhaps Robert thinks those are the same thing. Perhaps he thinks
> > >the distinctions involved are "syntactic."

So Robert says,

> I admit that an intruder in my home would frighten me.  I would be inclined
> to fear for my safety.  Of course, you are manlier than most, so this may not
> apply to you.

It is incredible, but seems to be true, that Robert is unable to
distinguish between being in fear for one's property and being
in fear for one's personal safety.
Since I am quite sure others can draw the distinction, I will
simply let them, and we'll leave it that it's yet another
of Robert's blind spots.

Robert's advice to homeowners:

> > Let me put it this way.  Don't point a gun unless you intend to use it.
> > If you use it, use it effectively.  Shooting to wound is a good way to get
> > yourself killed.  Would I reload to finish him off?  Probably not.  Would
> > I be victimized by the judicial system for letting him live?  Probably.

Jamie's Introit:

> > >This is really getting stupid.
>
> Most attempts at dialog with you tend to wind up that way.

In your experience.
Maybe that's because your idea of "dialogue" is that you make
an assertion, and if someone else asks you for some reason, or
evidence, or argument, you start calling names.

> > >"Shooting to wound is a good way to get yourself killed." Would
> > >you care to give some evidence for that assertion? Maybe Andy
> > >Freeman would like to help you out.
>
> OK.  The Lone Ranger *AND* Jamie can shoot the gun out of the bad guy's
> hand EVERY TIME.

I simply note that Robert STILL provides no evidence, no argument,
no reason.
And he seems to believe that "shooting to wound" is synonymous with
"shooting the gun out of the bad guy's hand."

> > >You think that the judicial system would "victimize" you if you
> > >merely wounded an intruder rather than killed him? On what basis
> > >do you say so? (Here's my guess: you have no basis at all. I truly
> > >hope I'm wrong about this.)
>
> As usual, you've guessed wrong.  I'm sure you've never heard of someone being
> sued after wounding an intruder.  I'm sure you've never heard the claims of
> the intruders, "I was only going to steal the ghetto blaster, not hurt
> anyone".  I'm sure you've never heard the mommys say, "He's always been such
> a good boy.  He wouldn't have harmed anyone if they would have just left him
> alone".  I'm sure you've never heard of the punk winning.  I'm sure that if
> you had, you wouldn't be taking such a ridiculous position.

And again, Robert STILL provides no evidence, no argument, no reason.
His only answer is that he finds my position "ridiculous."

Robert's ad hominem:

> > You see Bimbo's point because you're in basic agreement with it.  Instead
> > of an honorarium, "Logic Czar" appears to be some new form of mental disorde
My calm and judicious reply:

> > >Hm.
> > >"honorarium" doesn't mean what Robert thinks it means, but I guess
> > >that's no surprise.

Robert's plea:

> Again, Jamie combs for fleas amidst the buffalo herd.  "Honorarium" is not
> as out of context as you may think.  Even though "honorary title" may have
> been a better selection, Webster's supports my particular usage.


Yeah, sure it does. Not out of context, huh? No, I don't suppose
it was out of context. It's called a solecism.

Buffalo *herd*? I would have called your posting something else,
beginning with "buffalo."

(By the way, "Webster's" is a name that any publisher
can use for a dictionary, and many do. It does not single out one
dictionary among the buffalo herd.
This bit of trivia brought to you by your Enlightenment Logic Czar.)

> > >Rather than respond, I think I'll just leave Robert's concluding
> > >name-calling ("Bimbo," "mental disorder") to speak for itself.
>
> Where was your condemnation of *Jimbo* when he regurgitated his filth
> and hate upon the Christian members of this list?  Like I said, you and
> he are in basic agreement.

I let the Christian members respond for themselves. You folks seem
to be able to take care of yourselves, even without shotguns at
the ready (and I might add, I now have heard from one Christian
who disavows your deadly strategy, Robert).

(Now probably Andy F. will point out that I am biased again.)

And, by the way, I condemn no one. I condemn only tactics. I leave
you to follow Jimbo's exasperated recommendation to ad hominem
attack. You're following his advice splendidly, so far!

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU