|
View Poll Results: Should people without kids be exempted from paying taxes that are going towards schools/education? | |||
yes | 29 | 18.95% | |
no | 122 | 79.74% | |
results | 2 | 1.31% | |
Voters: 153. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] At risk of a brief threadjacking, at what point would it be okay for me to intervene? [/ QUOTE ] at the point were the interaction becomes non voluntary. IE as soon as he charges the child w/ a knife you can / should shoot his ass. [/ QUOTE ] Perhaps even sooner. I don't let anyone I don't know wield knives on my property, whether they are charging or not. [/ QUOTE ] Who said this encounter takes place on your property? Perhaps it takes place in a shopping mall, or on the golf course. In any case, do you really agree with the above? In other words, as soon as "Villain" (who isn't a villain yet) charges toward you holding a knife, you can shoot him merely because you *think* he may be hostile? I hadn't figured you for a supporter of Bush's pre-emptive strike doctrine. [/ QUOTE ] If it were like Bush's doctrine, pvn would need to walk into some guy's house and shoot him in his bed because he thinks that guy has a knife. The guy charging your kid with a knife is the one who initiated aggression. You shooting him is a response to that aggression and is therefore self-defense. [/ QUOTE ] At what point is his motivation clear enough that it's okay to preemptively attack him? [/ QUOTE ] He's attacking you in the scenario in the OP so there is no preemption. [/ QUOTE ] At what point is his motivation clear enough that it's okay to preemptively attack him? |
|
|