General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Pelican
(1,156 posts)Others disagree and are also within their rights...
On a side note.. Is there a level of violence that you would be willing to initiate for certain property that stops short of actually killing someone?
If someone stole your purse and you could grab them and knock them over would you?
Would you punch someone to stop the theft of your car?
Would you strike someone with a blunt object, causing serious injury but not likely death, to retain some personally treasured possession?
LWolf
(46,179 posts)are the disease that is killing humanity.
Levels of violence? Grabbing, knocking down, punching...not the same as killing.
Me? I would do any of the above to protect a life. Things? Not so much. Maybe the first 2.
You would kick someones ass to retreive your property but would not kill them?
LWolf
(46,179 posts)holding onto them while I yank my purse away, and then shoving them away while I escape in the other direction can be accurately described as "kicking someone's ass." 
Pelican
(1,156 posts)I'm trying to figure out what level of violence is acceptable to retreive or retain your property.
Relax...
Logical
(22,457 posts)
Kingofalldems
(38,459 posts)You're just schooling these bleeding hearts aren't you?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)In a lane of moving traffic?
LWolf
(46,179 posts)What if you could create a perfect fictional scenario to try to "push" me into causing someone harm?
It's not going to happen.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Money over life is main stream in the USA.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)is terminally ill.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Which, sadly, it has so well done.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)And your examples could easily escalate. Let them take the purse or the car and then deal with it for your own safety.
As for your last, no object should be that "treasured."
Pelican
(1,156 posts)The guy walking out the door with the family police badges plaque will meet resistance in my home.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I just cannot care about any thing on that level. The police service or whatever it is would still be there.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)Just don't give others the stink eye when they do have something that they care about....
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's a THING - it's pathetic to risk yourself for it.
tumtum
(438 posts)That's what they get paid to do.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)you wrote that out so clearly. Your plaque is worth more than a life. You value a plaque more than a life.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)It's cute how quickly you jumped to bam bam dead though...
Adorable...
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Just in case you missed what this thread is about.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)alphafemale
(18,497 posts)That would be like stealing a a third grader's soccer trophy. Sentimental value only.
Did you only mentioned it because you think police are more valueable than the rest of us and your opinions carry more weight?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)So if it were to be stolen, it would likely be a family member. You would kill a family member over some stinkin badges?
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Oh, so THAT is your agenda.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)The first person said a thief would meet "resistance". The person warped that into accusing him saying he would kill a family member.
Again, the inability to have ANY logic in their post gives away that persons agenda.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)I would say that there is ALWAYS the possibility of a death resulting. So the poster did not need to specifically say they would kill to protect their shit for it to be implied.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)After all, that is a possibility every time you get behind the wheel.
Great shit logic there.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)However if a death resulted from using my car in a violent or neglectful manner (i.e texting, driving while drunk, eating, shaving, putting makeup on etc) then yes, I would have to be prepared to accept responsibility for my actions.
Someone certainly is guilty of using shit logic here, but you might want to rethink which one of us it is.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)Teenagers...
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)But I'm not surprised that you enthusiastically support such a thing.
I don't think you are well suited to DU. You seem to hold very strong RW views.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)because they might be bigger than me and have a weapon.
we can do it
(12,189 posts) Pelican
(1,156 posts)If it came down to using violence, even lethal violence, I think most people would choose to do that rather than watch their home with everything they have built over their lives burn.
Nothing wrong with it... It's just not all or nothing
we can do it
(12,189 posts)Pelican
(1,156 posts)Nothing else to say then?
tumtum
(438 posts)When my kids were growing up, on various Army bases, I considered them my property and I would've had no problem defending them with lethal force if necessary.
Other than that, no, personal property is not worth shooting someone over.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and self-defense laws would allow you to do so.
NOT because they were your property.
tumtum
(438 posts)When they were growing up, I viewed them as my property, until they were of age, as in, my duty to defend them at all costs.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)You DO have a duty to defend your children.
tumtum
(438 posts)but where I come from, my children, until they turned 18, where my "property", as in, my responsibility to protect at all costs, including giving my life to protect theirs.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)or only you and your children?
tumtum
(438 posts)My daughters are now grown and out on their own, but when they were growing up, they were the ONLY "property" of ours that we felt was worth defending with force if necessary.
Materialistic property, NO, that can be replaced, not worth taking a human or animal life.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Jesus keeeerist!!!!
tumtum
(438 posts)of their growing up.
Must be we grew up in a different culture and era.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)And only intervenes when after determining neglect or endangerment.
Additionally, if they commit a crime, you can be held responsible.
tumtum
(438 posts)Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Frankly it's why I'm against charging minors as adults. It keeps the parents clean. In some cases understood, but the policy is abused
treestar
(82,383 posts)Not property. They are not your property. They are persons.
tumtum
(438 posts)and raise until they were legally old enough to leave the nest.
treestar
(82,383 posts)OMG!
tumtum
(438 posts)Deal with it, or don't, I no longer care.
Response to treestar (Reply #94)
Boom Sound 416 This message was self-deleted by its author.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)tumtum
(438 posts)You can argue with me till the end of time, you aren't going to change mine, or my wife's definition of what we believed.
You have your beliefs, we have ours, let's leave it at that.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Property
MerriamWebster
2
a : something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate
b : the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : ownership
c : something to which a person or business has a legal title
d : one (as a performer) who is under contract and whose work is especially valuable
thefreedictionary.com
n. pl. prop·er·ties
1.
a. Something owned; a possession.
b. A piece of real estate: has a swimming pool on the property.
c. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
d. Possessions considered as a group.
2. The right of ownership; title.
3. An article, except costumes and scenery, that appears on the stage or on screen during a dramatic performance.
4.
a. A characteristic trait or peculiarity, especially one serving to define or describe its possessor.
b. A characteristic attribute possessed by all members of a class. See Synonyms at quality.
5. A special capability or power; a virtue: the chemical properties of a metal.
Responsibility
Merriam Webster
a : moral, legal, or mental accountability
b : reliability, trustworthiness
2
: something for which one is responsible : burden <has neglected his responsibilities>
Responsible
1
a : liable to be called on to answer
b (1) : liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent <a committee responsible for the job> (2) : being the cause or explanation <mechanical defects were responsible for the accident>
c : liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties
2
a : able to answer for one's conduct and obligations : trustworthy
b : able to choose for oneself between right and wrong
3
: marked by or involving responsibility or accountability <responsible financial policies>
4
: politically answerable; especially : required to submit to the electorate if defeated by the legislature —used especially of the British cabinet
thefreedictionary.com
adj.
1. Liable to be required to give account, as of one's actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust.
2. Involving personal accountability or ability to act without guidance or superior authority: a responsible position within the firm.
3. Being a source or cause.
4. Able to make moral or rational decisions on one's own and therefore answerable for one's behavior.
5. Able to be trusted or depended upon; reliable.
6. Based on or characterized by good judgment or sound thinking: responsible journalism.
7. Having the means to pay debts or fulfill obligations.
8. Required to render account; answerable: The cabinet is responsible to the parliament.
tumtum
(438 posts)and I do have a difference of opinion than yours or Merriam's Dictionary.
I don't even know why you're making such a big deal of what myself and my wife believe, why is this so important to you?
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)word incorrectly, of course you have that right.
tumtum
(438 posts)and I have a difference of opinion of using the word incorrectly.
I guess it's just my upbringing and the era I grew up in.
No harm, no foul.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 27, 2013, 03:58 PM - Edit history (1)
treestar
(82,383 posts)If you and your wife got a divorce, would you get mad at the court that had a different opinion? It would have divided up your property but that would not include a valuation and division of your children. They would be subject to other proceedings, applicable to PERSONS, of child support and custody.
If they are your property then tell me, during their minority, what was their dollar value?
tumtum
(438 posts)You have your opinion, we have ours, get over it!!!
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)was supposed to be the end of an era in which people could be regarded as the property of other people.
Children are not the property of their parents, and they haven't been in either of our lifetimes. That is why, in divorce, they're not distributed to the parents as part of the property settlement. Instead, their future is determined in a custody agreement, which is an agreement to care for a child, not to accept ownership of a child.
Here, from dictionary.reference.com, are definitions of property -- none of which cover the situation of owning a child.
prop·er·ty [prop-er-tee]
noun, plural prop·er·ties.
1.
that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner: They lost all their property in the fire.
2.
goods, land, etc., considered as possessions: The corporation is a means for the common ownership of property.
3.
a piece of land or real estate: property on Main Street.
4.
ownership; right of possession, enjoyment, or disposal of anything, especially of something tangible: to have property in land.
5.
something at the disposal of a person, a group of persons, or the community or public: The secret of the invention became common property.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Do you have any contact with them? Now that they are no longer your property, you need not maintain them in any way. So if they have any troubles, that's not your problem. The property no longer exists.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)I call BULLSHIT on that.
And don't give me that "different era" crap. I was born before Pearl Harbor, on a 10,000 acre ranch, in a house without running water, with only a midwife attending to my mother. I was probably an adult before you were even born. My parents didn't have a lot of "property" but I doubt if they wanted me to be in that category. They may have considered me to be cheap labor for a few years, but never property.
If my own kids were property why the fuck was I able to claim a tax deduction for them instead of having to pay property taxes on them?
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)And only intervenes when after determining neglect or endangerment.
Additionally, if they commit a crime, you can be held responsible.
Because they are our property is why we can defend them, stop people from talking and (for the most part) kill someone who tries to harm them
treestar
(82,383 posts)Holy shit!
You can neglect and endanger your property without getting arrested.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)I've been reading this whole ridiculous discussion and wondering WTF the problem is here.
I, personally, would not have called my children my "property", but if someone else wants to think of their children in that way, it's no skin off my ass.
Why should it matter so much to you?
Sometimes it's just better to say, "OK, we don't agree on that" and let it go.
By the same token, I wouldn't give a flaming rat's ass if someone decided their property...a vintage Mustang...was a freaking family member.
Why does this silly shit matter so much to people?
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Which is exactly why I gave up responding. We're arguing whether a ball is a round or spherical
Progressive dog
(6,905 posts)were called slaves. You can own a dog, you can't own a child.
hunter
(38,318 posts)... even food animals, is something more than "property."
I can muck about inside my computers all I want, I can even take a soldering iron to my computers' guts. I can smash an old television with a a sledge hammer.
But if I tortured a pig like I sometimes torture my inanimate machines then people would rightfully call me an animal abuser.
Progressive dog
(6,905 posts)licensed and the license lists the owner. You may not like it, but that's the way the world sees it.
I think this is kind of off subject and childishly rude. It certainly doesn't make any sense as a response to what I wrote.
BTW: Just for your edification, you can't really "torture" machines.
hunter
(38,318 posts)... or what the law is.
My personal ethics usually exceed what the law requires.
The law or "the way the world sees it" is a pretty low ethical standard to live by.
I'm not sure why you think my comment is "off subject and childishly rude."
In crimes of violence against humans and animals I've aggressively intervened, or I've tried first to flee if the violence was directed at my own self and nobody else. But I've never been in a situation where a gun would have been useful, not even as a means of intimidation and control.
In agreement with the original post, I'm never going to shoot anyone over property, nor do I see guns as especially useful tools of "self defense" or defense of innocents.
Progressive dog
(6,905 posts)have such high self professed ethics. I might have missed where I was defending the use of guns, perhaps your high ethics gives you greater understanding of the written word. I was actually disputing the poster who considers his children as property.
And yes, I believe that living things can be my property, with the exception of humans. I expect when my town has a leash law that it will be me who doesn't let my dog run loose. In fact, I expect that responsible dog OWNERS will actually take care of their pets. You might want to join the ASPCA or Humane Society, there actually are animal cruelty laws in many states.
hunter
(38,318 posts)Three dogs is the legal limit in our city.
I'm not a regressive who sees wives and children as property, and neither are you, I get that.
But I do see the more sentient animals as inhabiting some space between mere "property," which has no rights in and of itself, and humans who do have rights.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I do not know what to say.
I view my child as he is. A human being that does not yet have the capacity to survive without assistance. I am there to help get him self sufficient.
tumtum
(438 posts)My wife and I have a difference of opinion than yours or anyone else here.
Deal with it, or don't.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I care what you think.
Reading your profile, yours is a story I would love to hear more a about. Your background is completely different than mine and the forces which have shaped your views so different than my experiences. I would love to hear your story and what you have experienced in your lifetime.
tumtum
(438 posts)but in a PM, I won't spread my life story all over DU.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
I'm into guns and I've never thought about shooting someone of another race.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)tumtum
(438 posts)Never shot anyone, never thought about shooting anyone, never want to shoot anyone.
JH19059
(90 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Does your pony know any other tricks?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)or your life. For instance, if someone breaks into your house at 2 in the morning, I think you're justified to feel threatened.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)machete until they approached my family or me, but I would not question someone shooting a person who has broken in.
Now, someone rummaging around in the yard or garage, is a different story.
tumtum
(438 posts)Some stealing my exterior property? Fine, take it, I won't confront you, that's the police's job, enter my home, then all bets are off and I will shoot if the police haven't arrived yet and I perceive a threat to my family.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)oh wait, that's already happened.
No benefit of the doubt, no "innocence until proven guilty" if you're a black teenager out after dark.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)is that worth killing someone over?
Do you think someone says "Hey, I am just breaking in to steal from ya. Have a seat over there mmm k?"
So how do you know their intent. Have them sit down for some tea and discuss while watching dr who with them?
Sure, property itself is not but when you talk about how they are removing it from you it gets interesting.
tumtum
(438 posts)then I'll just call the police, arm myself, and pray they're not stupid enough to invade my home, but, if they do, them they invite the disaster that will befall them.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
gollygee
(22,336 posts)and the safety of your family.
But not if someone is breaking into your car. That's a case where you can call the police.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... point out in the OP, where it was said that "someone is breaking into my home, and my daughter is here, and he wants to rape her...."?
My 'puter must be broke, 'cuz I don't see a single mention, let alone something approaching that fresh steaming pile of gunhumper logic.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)tv,'s , computers, etc.
So if someone is coming into your home to take your property did they send a notice out first?
If the general idea that the op is based on is "I wouldn't shoot/kill someone who was stealing my property" than I don't think it is a stretch that they are referring to what they own which is most likely in their house.
So...once more, how do you know that is all they want to do?
Would you shoot someone coming into your home or ask them first if they were just there to steal and then sit back and trust them that that is all they are doing.
People set things like this up because who is going to say "Well, I value my computer more than a human life, but we all know gun owners don't" kind of thing.
It is written in a way you can't disagree without sounding bad, so I am just fleshing out the situation based on general facts when it comes to how your property is removed from you.
Something some people don't seem to want to discuss.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Where is there ANY mention of the made up nonsense you are droning on about.
You aren't "fleshing out," you are pulling stuff from your butt.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Seems like people are not taking it as a simple statement.
But I am wondering, what would you do if someone was breaking into your home and you were babysitting a few young kids.
Call the cops and wait for them to get there and hope they are in time? Would you just do nothing? Hope they are the only one and no one is behind then and they just want to use the bathroom?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)<a href="
.html" target="_blank"><img src="
" border="0" alt=" photo IMG_9227.jpg"/></a>
<a href="
.html" target="_blank"><img src="
" border="0" alt="Nakita photo Nikita_homecoming1.jpg"/></a>
tumtum
(438 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Yes they are. The black GSD is a adult rescue, named Nakita and the white GSD is a pup rescue named Sadie Mae. They're wonderful companions, great home security, and I don't have to lock them in a safe to keep them from harming the wrong people.
tumtum
(438 posts)Our first line of defense is a steel front door with a steel frame and a sturdy deadbolt, 2nd line of defense is our 2 dogs, third line of defense, if someone is psychotic enough to continue, is our cell phone with 911 on speed dial, and the last line of defense is a 12 ga. pump shotgun.
If the sound of the shotgun being racked isn't enough to send someone running, then, it's on them for whatever ultimately happens.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... the sound of your 2 GSDs wouldn't be more than enough to make 99.999% of intruders decide to find a different venue.
tumtum
(438 posts)Dogs make great deterrents, and great companions.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)You just use dogs as your weapon of choice.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)I spoke about the death penalty for simple trespassing.
You do realize that there are ways of securing yourself and your property, short of killing people, right?
You also realize that Paul Kersey was a completely fictional character, and MOST times, despite the gunhumpers ridiculous fantasy world fetish view, vigilantes usually make matters far worse, not better.
BTW, if you are stupid enough to break into a home, after hearing a rather large dog, with rather large, sharp teeth and a VERY strong sense of territory, barking a warning to you, you deserve what you get, including the "harm" you most assuredly WILL receive.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Sometimes I drive to the grocery store or work. If someone breaks into my car, I am not going to kill them.
I have things at my work. If someone breaks in there and steals things, I won't kill them.
Sometimes I am gone from my home. If I arrive home and see someone running out with my tv, I'm not going to kill them.
There are lots of places other than "home with my daughter" that I have property to steal. You aren't "fleshing out the situation" but throwing out a strawman.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Fine, then let the op explain which situations.
I offered ONE. You are offering another. If I had a car and someone broke into it and I was not in it (but saw them), no I would not shoot at them (if I owned a gun).
Now, if you were in your house and they were breaking in what would you do?
Apophis
(1,407 posts)Someone stole from me? Fine. But I'm not going to go out and get a gun and some gun training just so I can shoot and kill the next guy who steals from me.
We have a fucked up sense of morality in this country.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)If a person is running away, your life is not in danger. That also means that the perp would have to be shot in the back. I am talking about if they are fleeing with your property.
tumtum
(438 posts)Not sure if you can shoot if they're fleeing, shouldn't be able to, if there running away, they're no longer a threat to your well being.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)A man was acquitted in the shooting death of a woman for refusing sex after being paid for escort services.
I believe the killing was considered legal by Texas standards because she was leaving with the money, and it was after dark.
tumtum
(438 posts)But, it is TX.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)fleeing thieves. And it wasn't even his stuff he took lives over!
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5283784&page=1
You probably remember this case as it got a lot of attention at the time. And this guy had been specifically told by a dispatcher not to shoot them. (Yes, I know Zimmerman apologists, dispatchers advice isn't a legal order
) Some people in Texas are nuts! Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)that it is actually presumptuous to value one life over another so I am not even sure we can justify killing for self defense.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)... in the corner... with your juice box.
Sheesh... If you don't have a fight or flight mechanism in your brain then you fell off the evolution train at some point. Good lord.
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)Because, you know, people like Gandhi should go sit in a corner with their juice boxes as they fell off the evolutionary train at some point, eh? This is the type of response I would expect from some violent right wing racist not someone on DU.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)"Perfect non-violence is imossible so long as we exist physically, for we would want some space a least to occupy... but we have to endeavour every moment of our lives.
Taking life may be a duty... Even man-slaughter may be necessary in certain cases. Suppose a man runs amuck and goes furiously about, sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes in his way, and no one dares capture him alive. Anyone who despatches this lunatic will earn the gratitude of the community, and be regarded as a benevolent man."
Gandhi, All Men Are Brothers, Chap. IV "Ahimsa or the Way of Non-Violence," compiled and edited by Krishna Kripalani, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1960.
And you have now read this on DU.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)and people can find what they want to defend the position they want. Also, no matter how one reads Gandhi, the position I articulated still exists.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)myself generally a pacifist and an advocate of non-violence but, having said that, I think violence was required and thus morally justified to stop Hitler and the Nazis, including the various Jewish ghetto uprisings and Stauffenberg's bombing plot.
I also think violence was required and thus morally justified to bring an end to American slavery and suppress and defeat Southern treason and insurrection. Those are about the only two instances in American history where I can clearly justify the use of violence. (The Revolutionary War is far more ambiguous, imho.)
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Where systematic means of non-violent strategies are used against an oppressor. His personal commitment (and advocacy) of resisting both systematic oppression and personal threat without inflicting injury on the oppressor was not so didactic as to hold up to moral opprobrium those who used violence to protect their own life, the lives of loved-ones, and the community; hence the quote. I understand MLK also noted this distinction with a difference when it came to the defense of one's family.
Tolstoy's pacifism differs markedly from that of Gandhi's in that the former did not advocate active pacifism or non-violent resistance as Gandhi & MLK did. And he probably would not have agreed with either non-violent or violent resistance to attacks on one's self, family and community.
This is where the debate bogs down: There are those who confuse Gandhi & MLK's non-violent resistance with Tolstoy's seeming uniform pacifism, even in the face of personal/familial attack. In the social realm, a non-violent activist would resist a personal/family attack -- either non-violently or violently -- and still be considered a "benevolent man" and receive the "gratitude of his community."
So eloquent. So true.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)"strawman argument" means what you think it means.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)argument is that a person's life is worth more than property.
you don't argue that, but instead come up with a "maybe one life isn't worth more than another and therefore no one should shoot anyone even if clearly in danger." That's your response to a completely different argument. You instead make up an easily knocked-down but entirely different argument.
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)A straw man is misrepresenting the position of another so that it can be more easily disproven. I introduced a whole new position and made no attempt to restate the origional position. You seem to be upset by my introduction of this new position but that does not make it a straw man no matter how many times you call it one...it just makes you look like you do not understand the fallacy properly.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)"A life is not worth more than my personal property."
"So you don't think it's OK to take a life even if your life is in danger, since one life isn't worth more than another."
I mean, why don't you just respond to the original issue?
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)The problem would be solved? How you paraphrased me is in your head not on your screen. I seem to have upset you and am puzzled why a message of non-violence would make you so apparently irate.
As to responding to the original issue, I did. I responded by pointing out the decisional cut point can be moved out even farther. I would of course agree with the OP but add, as I did, it does not go far enough in the opinions of others.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the notion that I have sacrifice my life to ensure no harm to someone who is threatening me or my family is stupid beyond belief. All life is equal unto the point where you endanger the lives of others. Then the value of your live is less then those that you are threatening.
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)until you say it's not?
I was just putting something out there that is rather accepted in many non-violent circles. The replies to the concept are interesting.
hack89
(39,171 posts)a value system that cannot distinguish between self defense and murder is useless.
I am not going to stand by and watch someone murder my love ones. No - a murder's life is not worth the same as the life of an innocent's. The murderer set the value of his life to zero when he decided to murder.
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)A value system can distinguish between good from evil yet decide not to take the course of action you are suggesting. Gandhi held this position. Now, you can agree or disagree with his position but to call his value system "useless?" Wow. Just, wow.
hack89
(39,171 posts)He would agree with me. Let's remember we are talking about the man who called the disarming of the Indian people a great crime perpetuated by the British.
There are shades of grey regarding Gandhi you are apparently unaware of. Google "Gandhi self defense quotes".
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)Gandhi did not come from the womb in the fullness of his wisdom; like most of us he evolved and changes opinions through his life. You accusing me of a lack of nuance in understanding is a little amusing. Gandhi was a British loyalist as a younger man. The full quote came from a WWI pamphlet where he was urging his fellow Indians to fight with the British, and by this act, hopefully convincing Britain to grant citizenship in the Empire. The full quote is:
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn."
As we know he later moved to the position of seperatism.
As to violence...the shades of grey are many. He sort of gave an abeyance in certain circumstances deeming violent self defense superior to cowardice. The cowardice was in not being strong enough to nonviolently face violence against one's self and others.
hack89
(39,171 posts)for choosing the lives of his family over that of a murderer. Is that what you really believe?
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)I just stated how he granted abeyance which would indicate a lack of condemnation, no? There is a distinct difference between condemning something and not thinking something is the optimal solution, no?
hack89
(39,171 posts)it is not something to take lightly nor to minimize. But it certainly can be the moral choice.
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)and it could be argued it is not; it is all going to depend on one's assumptions, no? What it can never be argued though is that it's the only choice.
tumtum
(438 posts)If someone's threatening my life, my wife, my children, what am I supposed to do, sing kumbya my lord?
NO, I will defend myself with force, lethal force if necessary.
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)You've decided when violence to others is acceptable; others might make their decision at different cut points, i.e. property defense.
tumtum
(438 posts)I already said that the only "property" I would defend would be my family, material property, no, taking a life for something I can replace is not acceptable to me.
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)I just gave another example. Also, deeming people "property" is usually what right wingers do.
tumtum
(438 posts)I don't consider my family property in the traditional sense, I consider them "property", as in, it's my duty to protect them from any harm if possible.
Take it however.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)tumtum
(438 posts)Let's leave it at that, ok?
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)usage of words. Some people like to learn and use words with the proper meanings. Others don't. I understand.
tumtum
(438 posts)We just probably grew up in a different culture and era. 
chillfactor
(7,576 posts)I never EVER considered my children to be my "property"...they were my husband's and I RESPONSIBILITY to protect...my god...you sound like a slave owner...
tumtum
(438 posts)That's your opinion, not ours.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)property. People are not property.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)Happy to be here and thanks for the welcome!
NutmegYankee
(16,200 posts)This has to be one of the dumber statements I've seen on DU. Even a pacifist recognizes the right to defend himself. They just oppose offensive actions.
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)What you said is not entirely true and also a conflation. There is a distinct difference between non-violence and non-agression and you seem to have rolled them into one. I agree some pacifists believe in self defense however others do not. Either way, the distinction between non-violence vs. non-agression is an important one as it leads to different responses in many situations.
I do find it funny that you have deemed me statement to be "one of the dumber" ones you've seen when your statement is so busy conflating distinct concepts and representing pacifists as a monolithic group when they are not.
NutmegYankee
(16,200 posts)
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Seems to me they lack a basic sense of self-preservation, in that case.
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)the topic was lethal resistance, no? At least, that is what I have been addressing.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I just kind of scratch my head at the reducto ad absurdum version of "pacifism" wherein a person won't even use force to defend themselves or a loved one. That, to me, seems downright suicidal.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Am going down fighting in that situation. .. I'll get my pound of flesh before I go
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Each person's life has an equal default value. However, a person's actions can create a differentiation. That is to say, a person committing an unwarranted act of violence against another has, by their own choice and by dint of those actions, devalued their own life in comparison to that of the person they are attacking.
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)laid out a set of assumptions that bring you to the position you desire. Some might say the value of a life does not change and that all life is valued equally. Others might say free will, as commonly espoused in Western philosophy, is illusory so the person committing violence in your above assumptions really did not have complete free will in making that choice.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I did nothing of the sort, and I resent the implication that I would argue in the dishonest manner that you describe. I thus have minimal expectations that continuing this conversation will be anything other than a waste of time, but what the hell? I've got a few minutes before the Gold Cup Finals.
What I actually did was lay out assumptions that honestly reflect those preconditions to the action described that reflect my views on both relativism in the matter of value of life and determinism. I consider the former (relativism) to be valid and the latter (determinism) to be largely invalid. Moreover, if one is going to excuse violent assault on the basis of determinism, one must also acknowledge that the person responding to said assault is similarly constrained. The removal of ethical responsibility via the (rather too-convenient) argument of a deterministic universe works both ways.
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)You start off telling me I've presented a "poor argument" and then are getting all huffy when I critique yours and then insult me by saying your expectations on further conversation with me are minimal?
Nice one.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Calling an argument "poor" isn't a personal insult. Accusing someone of dishonesty is.
Obviously.
Care to address the matter at hand or are we done here?
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)I mean, in your huffy and self-righteous reply you admitted to what I said you did; you just called them "preconditions." That was a nice move though and made me chuckle so thanks for that.
I imagine most of your conversations here end with you in a huff and you storming off?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)You seem to have nothing to contribute but insults, inane speculations about my conversations, and some comedy-tier reasoning* about determinism. You lead off with personal insult, then express astonishment when someone reacts poorly to it. Gee, where have I see that before?
Oh, right: from pretty much every message board troll that ever posted.
Buh-bye, have a nice life, and welcome to Ignore. You being new here, you may not know that this means I'll not see any reply you choose to make. So knock yourself out. May I suggest more pungently ironic accusations of "self righteousness?" Those are always good.
*Clue, should you find people with the patience to attempt actual substantive discourse with you: establishing premises in an argument that honestly reflect one's view of the foundational conditions antecedent to the argument isn't the same thing as dishonestly creating such premises in order to arrive at an emotionally-preferred conclusion. You accused me of the latter, a blatant personal insult. If this differentiation confuses you, ask someone (else) to explain it to you. Ta ta...
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)In all of my predictions about you.
And I'm smiling even harder that you continue to think your "preconditions" that honestly reflect one's view does not lead one to a conclusion that will...honestly reflect one's views.
You have a nice day now.
gulliver
(13,186 posts)The people who commit the crimes know the rules. I only wish we would do the things necessary to keep them from needing or wanting to commit the crimes in the first place. You are entitled to renounce defending your own property. I wouldn't kill someone stealing a chicken to feed a starving child, maybe not even someone stealing my car to feed a drug habit.
But what about the person who really needs the thing being stolen? What about the harm to them? What about the psychologically delicate? If you burglarize someone's home, for example, you are putting them at risk of a life-ending confrontation. Or you could be stealing the only food they have for that day. You might make them feel victimized for life, give them PTSD, tip them into a suicidal depressive tailspin...
It's not simple.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)there's a chance that they have a gun and we will both die, but if I do exactly what they want, it's pretty much guaranteed that, at worst, only one of us will end up dead (me). Who am I to decide my life is worth more than their life?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)as it was when someone said it upthread.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)I'm not presenting someone else's argument in a false way. Thought I didn't say it before, I'll concede that NO property is worth another person's life. The question remaining is whether ANYTHING is worth another person's life? Would I be justified if I kill someone to prevent them from kicking my ass or raping me (with a small possibility it would unintentionally result in my death)? What if I had reason to believe that their intention might be to kill me? What if I knew their intention was to kill me? Is a single person with no family justified in killing a father of five who murders and kills to feed his family?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Sorry, but you are saying you'd submit to rape without protecting yourself and you are saying that people with mouths to feed have a right to murder others undisturbed. What the fuck does some murderer having kids have to do with those he attacks protecting themselves? Why should they care, how would they know?
Crazy, horrific talk that seems to devalue good humans in favor of the worst.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)However, I did ASK (note the question marks) what another person's life is "worth". Are two lives equal? Are there circumstances unrelated to a person's personal qualities that put a value on their life (like their role in society or other, possibly innocent, lives that depend on them)? Why is it "women and children first" on a lifeboat if all lives are equal? Is it worth taking another's life to protect someone from harm? How much harm must one be threatened with to make it okay? Obviously, someone who's going to slap you on the wrist doesn't justify killing them, so where is the line?
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)How about big biddness killing peasants for oil?
Or land?
Or right of way?
Go USA.
Logical
(22,457 posts)he would take his wife and kid and gun. Hide in the closet, call 911 and if the person entered the closet, kill him. Otherwise, let the police deal with it. I agree with that logic.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Obviously if an intruder is in your home when you're in it, it's by definition not just about your property anymore.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Exactly. There's a big difference between mere theft, and an actual threat to one's person. An intruder in the home would be the latter.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Why own something you're not willing to fight for?
Is it a sign of our decadence that we are willing to write off property that is worth more money than half the population of the planet will see in a lifetime of labor?
It's easy to say "my stuff isn't worth a human life" because your stuff doesn't keep you alive either. And it would be the height of decadence to be willing to kill for property that is little more than an affectation. But there is a middle ground, and that place is found a lot closer to having just what you need than where we we are now. The fact that we can speak in terms of the disposability of all material goods is a sign of our decadence. Our survival is so assured by our infrastructure it has become invisible to us although certainly many have died because of it.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I think you are correct. It is a sign of our decadence.
Most everything I "own" I would be willing to share communally. That is if I was given reasonable access when I needed use of the item. But our society is the "ownership" society and there is no good method to have use of things without owning them. Movies, equipment at rent-a-center, bouncy castles, and others I am sure are exceptions. But, the majority of items we use on a daily basis cannot easily be shared outside of your household. Well, that is dependent on where you live too. Condominium/apartment complexes could have a common room where things like tvs/games/pools/movies/music are all shared.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)I know several older people, for example, living on SS, who would be in terrible physical trouble a month or two after they were robbed of a few hundred dollars. That's the money they use for prescriptions that literally keep them alive.
And if it kept happening?
When people break into people's homes to rob the inhabitants, I think it's justifiable to shoot the invaders. Tragic, but justifiable. To be mourned, but yet justifiable.
A criminal who robs a poor or vulnerable person takes upon him- or herself all the guilt for all the possible consequences, and that includes loss of life or physical harm. If a person is threatened with robbery of some property that he or she cannot afford to lose without risk to his or her own life or the lives of family, such a person is entirely justified in using lethal force or the threat of lethal force to defend against the loss.
Robbing the rich is a very different crime from robbing those who need every penny they've got.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)
A couple goes to dangerous lengths to find a lung donor for their daughter.
This film got no press but it is well-written, has a great cast/performances, and an ending that's a knock-out. Dermout Mulroney gives a dynamic performance as a father who is pushed to the brink to help his dying child. Diane Kruger is equally as good as a mother squeezed to the breaking point. The film is intense and fast-paced. The direction is FANTASTIC. The Music is well-done and the art direction sets the tone. Rent it. You won't be sorry.
The story is about a young couple who's daughter need a lung transplant. Everything seems hopeless until their Doctor gives them a lead that takes the desperate father into Mexico, to buy his way onto their donor list. But what he finds both surprises and shocks him. And he is faced with an impossible choice. IT IS A GREAT MOVIE!
more at link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1196340/?ref_=sr_1
1KansasDem
(251 posts)is your property.
A street mugger will sometimes shoot the victim after receiving their property.
A robber at a convenience store sometimes takes the money then shoots the cashier.
If I'm armed and someone wants my property, they may get more than my property.
Yes, I have a CC permit.
KentuckyWoman
(6,688 posts)Thieves who just want the stuff don't come in when people are home. People who break in while the inhabitants are there generally are up to more than taking flat screens and laptops.
If my loud alarm and screams and big dog barking at them doesn't make them leave the business end of a gun will have to settle things.
And I hope to God no one ever forces me to do such a horrible thing.....
B2G
(9,766 posts)How do you know if their intent is to rob you, kill you or both?
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Their job, if they value their life is to not to commit suicide by home invasion.
They should expect they are committing suicide if they try to take from me what I need to live too, I won't accept risk of loss of shelter, loss of transportation that allows me to work, the money I have to feed myself if I can help it.
I don't apologize for that either.
Beyond that one is not necessarily committing suicide but they are still playing with fire by making an effort to enslave me, stealing the fruits of my labor without compensation is pushing it. I don't think folks have a right to what I have struggled and sacrificed for and cannot easily replace with the snap of my fingers.
I may not respond to such actions with deadly force but I'm not going to blame someone who does much either and if one uses the threat of violence to get their way then all bets are off, suicide by armed robbery.
You can't encourage marauders by giving them immunity to plunder and you can't start pretending we are not in a capitalist system where folks trade away the days of their lives in exchange for what they have from the essentials to survival to that which give us semblance of quality of life. Most of us are a paycheck or two from being deprived of shelter, not being able to keep utilities, food, hell...we have to pay for fucking water.
Hollering about calling the police is meaningless since most crimes go unsolved and even if they are solved the other person is punished but the victim is not made whole.
I tend to think that if you are concerned about this kind of thing then your energy is better used in support of a living wage, a quality safety net, ending the drug war, and at least defanging capitalism so no one is desperate to the point of depravity and anyone in such a position was in it for greed not need rather than trying to make the world safer for muggers and armed robbers to do their thing and encouraging poor on poor crime while pretending the state will in anyway rectify the situation.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
valerief
(53,235 posts)Just Saying
(1,799 posts)Protecting life is one thing, protecting stuff quite another.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Live through a home invasion when your children are sleeping
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)when you are trained to kill everything is a threat or a target...... just sayin 
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)Mr Pipi was on a local city police force for nearly 20 years.
The only time he ever fired his weapon was when a suspect jumped into a river to try and escape. He gave warning...the guy kept swimming.
Fired gun toward water...didn't want to shoot the guy. Guy kept swimming.
So the Mr does what any cop who doesn't want to kill someone does...removes his gun belt and jumps in after the guy. Caught him. Alive.
Only time he ever fired his weapon...
even when he was threatened in the middle of a busy road with an 18 inch long machete type knife wielded by a pissed off pizza cook.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)With my wife that many officers will go over twenty years on duty and never needed to shoot or kill anyone yet Zimmerman only had his gun two years and killed a child. I'm sorry if I lump all military or police in one basket but all are not heroes as we like to pretend since 9/11. I feel someone needs to show the other side of the coin. As I teach my children, judge people by their actions not by their attire, be it doctors, lawyers, military and police officers. Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)if someone broke into my house in the middle of the night, I'd don't think I would want to have a discussion with them over whether they wanted my TV, or to rape me, to abduct me, or to torture and kill me. I think that if I had a weapon, (and I don't) I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)<sarcasm thingie>
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)If someone were about to kill your dog would you risk the killer's life to save your dog? Would you stop them from killing your dog by using lerhal force?
doggie breath
(30 posts)if you threaten harm to any of them or try to take them, I will use any and all necessary force to stop you.
If you value harming my dogs more than you value your own life, in that case I will be more than willing to oblige you.
Silent3
(15,235 posts)...in order to get my stuff, and the more they go from desperation to meet their own legitimate needs toward avarice and a "fuck you" attitude, like "I'm taking your stuff and there ain't shit you can do about!", then the less I'm going to value that person's life.
If I can help it, I certainly won't accept physical harm of myself or a loved one, or even an innocent stranger for that matter, forced up me by the callous disregard of an assailant. Whether the law would back me up or not, I don't feel I need to accept, for instance, a non-lethal bad beating just because my only defense against it might potentially be lethal.
If I were to too quickly choose a lethal defense in the heat of the moment of being attacked or defending someone else from an attack, in a situation where armchair quarterbacks with plenty of time on their hands can later leisurely decide I had less lethal alternatives, then my only regrets would be for possible legal consequences to me, not for the asshole who forced me into that situation in the first place.
I don't own a gun, however, and don't spend a lot of time worrying about home break-ins, muggers, etc., so regardless of what I feel about this stuff philosophically, I'm mainly just counting on the odds to keep me safe, and not designing my life around heroic defender fantasies.
Boudica the Lyoness
(2,899 posts)If I was to wake up in the night, with someone in my home, I wouldn't think they were there just to take stuff.
They are all ready in my home and that makes them a very bad person.
How would I know it was only stuff they were after? Maybe they don't intend to leave witness's behind. Maybe they are going to beat me, or my family, to death for the code to the safe.
To be blunt...not knowing how bad their intentions are and not wanting to find out....they would get shot by one of my family members.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)uppityperson
(115,677 posts)leaving out "I agree" as it doesn't work here
hey, hi
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
ileus
(15,396 posts)Want my bike no problem....want my coin collection my father gave me...now we have a problem.
Want my shotgun collection from my grandfather...not a chance, but you're welcome to the chain saw and tools in my out building.
Maybe I should say...stay to fuck out of my house and I probably won't engage you. Unless of course I feel you're threatening bodily injury to me or the fam.
Igel
(35,320 posts)I can imagine situations in which I'd kill over property because of its quantity and the level of destruction. I can imagine situations where I wouldn't.
Nuance and uncertainty. I'm okay with them.
Same with this case. I don't know enough to say that the kid was only interested in some "harmless" trespassing and maybe taking a porch ornament. Nobody does, unless there's been a useful update. Yet that's what a lot of people here desperately assume.
That said, I also don't know if it's reasonable to assume that somebody who jumped a fence at 2 a.m. and is by your back door must be only interested in a bit of property theft outside. Esp. since not long back there was in that neighborhood a robbery that happened at night where the burglar(s) broke in, held the occupants at knife point, and shot at them for no apparent reason.
I mean, is that more reasonable than assuming that the trespasser--whose already done one illegal thing and is almost certainly intends to do a second illegal thing--is dangerous and armed? Do you want to wait for him to break into your small, one story house to find out? Do you shout "boo!" and hope that he runs instead of, startled and on edge, shoots you?
Hindsight's wonderful and it's tempting to fall for the fallacy and project what we know back into the guy's mind at 2 a.m. The video might help, but it still wouldn't go to the guy's mental state when he fired the gun. It might even be oddly prejudicial because it's possible for a video to show far more than the naked eye would show.
Lack of knowledge has never stopped beliefs, though.
Nunliebekinder
(33 posts)If someone enters my house illegally, there is no benefit of the doubt. I assume they are there to commit great bodily harm to myself and will shoot to kill. If nonviolence is your philosophy, that's great. You can roll over and die, but don't begrudge me if I choose not to.
Response to Ed Suspicious (Original post)
LumosMaxima This message was self-deleted by its author.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)just saying...As long as you are giving out permission to take your stuff...
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)affirmation that I will not shoot?
Egnever
(21,506 posts)me.
Having said that if everyone broadcast what you did. A large part of what keeps criminals from taking that risk would be gone.
You are of course welcome to act any way you please but you can be damn sure if someone steps foot in my house without my permission they will be met with resistance up to and including the lose of their life.
I am willing to bet you aren't willing to broadcast your stance to your community where you aren't under the protection of anonymity. Cause that would be stupid wouldn't it? to broadcast to criminals that you will do nothing when they come for your stuff.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Were someone burgling my house while I was in it, I wouldn't be shooting to protect my property. I'd be shooting to protect me.
panzerfaust
(2,818 posts)And would not feel bad about it at all.
Robber mistakenly hands gun to cashier during bank robbery - I would not count on being so lucky.
ceonupe
(597 posts)the person taking your property may not think your life is worth keeping and risking their arrest.
if they are 2 x felon getting caught breaking into your house could equal 25 to life. they may not decied its worth it.
Video link to woman being beaten during a robbery for PROPERTY .
link
link
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)You don't have the right to make it the way that everybody does things, unless you command a majority of support that is ultimately put into law. Then, those who disagree with you will have the opportunity to move to places where your opinion is not the norm.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)and may try to kill you.
In a world where thieves never use deadly force, I would agree.
hunter
(38,318 posts)Should I shoot them?
Strangers in my house have been...
1.) People who were drunk or stoned or crazy and in the wrong place.
2.) People my housemates have invited in without telling me
3.) An armed guy hiding on my back porch who ran away and didn't shoot me.
4.) Cops looking for stuff with and without proper warrants.
5.) A scared kid who ran out our back door with our VCR under his arm
... etc., etc., etc., and this does not include other sorts of non-human wildlife
Sounds like some of the folks posting here, who have never lived in either an urban or natural wilderness, would have shot 'em all.
I've experienced some situations of extreme violence and terror, but there's not been one where I might have improved things by shooting someone. Mostly that happens in the movies, not real life. I find the violent masturbatory fantasies of gun lovers distasteful.
And, oh yeah: Fuck Zimmerman and all his defenders.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Hurt my cats? I don't like your chances.
Peaceplace80
(38 posts)I don't know how anyone can justify killing someone over a piece of property. It can be replaced a humane life cannot.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Strange situations, such as someone trying to steal my arm or the last of my water during a terrible disaster, may be different.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I concur that my property is not worth a person's life. However, as I cannot read minds, I consider myself under no obligation to assume a robber does not also intend to do me physical harm.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)I would never take life to protect my property.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)While I agree that possessions are not more important than human life, even when another human is taking what isn't theirs, there are exceptions such as when one human is attempting to take a possession (food or shelter) that are necessary for survival from another. If you try to take the food I need to survive from me, I would have no problem defending that food. On the other hand, stealing food from a store for survival is not generally worth killing over. It's a matter of context.
I also believe there is a limit to how far and in what circumstances a person must flee from danger. If someone attacks me on the street and I have the ability to flee to safety, I should have that responsibility. However, if someone breaks into my home to attack me, I do not believe I should have a responsibility to flee. Safe shelter is a basic requirement for life and anyone seeking to take that away is in effect putting their survival in conflict with someone else's.
randome
(34,845 posts)Kidding. Simple but eloquent. 
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
