[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Mad SCO Disease

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, AthlonRob wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 03:26 -0700, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, AthlonRob wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2004-06-28 at 19:10 -0700, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> > > If I had my conceal carry permit and was heading into an area of
> > > Portland I didn't like,
> >
> > Like the West Hills?  I really don't like that area.  Should I carry a gun
> > when I have to go there?
>
> Are you more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in the West
> Hills?  I don't think so.

If I were somebody looking to do some assault for the purpose of robbing
folks, I'd probably go there first... or maybe NW 23rd Ave.

But that's not the point, you wrote that you'd bring your gun if you were
going to a neighborhood you didn't like.

> > > So any kind of recreation that serves no constructive purpose is
> > > waste, now?
> > Well, if it's not contructive, it's wasteful.  I think that's a pretty
> > straightforward statement.
>
> It relieves stress and lets me have fun - sounds constructive to me.

Aren't there things that relieve stress and let you have fun that don't
also destroy things?  Maybe even some that improve things other than your
own mood?

> > > You aren't going to fend off a criminal trying to do you harm with a
> > > gun that you don't carry.
> > You're not going to fend off a criminal with a gun anyway!  The odds
> > are overwhelmingly against it.
>
> The odds are you won't need to fend off a criminal with a gun... but the
> odds are even better you won't hurt anybody with a gun you're carrying,
> so what's your point?

The odds are even better that you won't hurt anybody with a gun you're NOT
carrying.  That's the point.  If the purpose is to decrease the chances of
a person getting hurt, leave the gun at home.

> > The only violent crime I've ever witnessed was domestic abuse.
> I wish the rest of the world were as lucky as you...

I wish that I was one of the unlucky ones for having witnessed that much.

> > Police, militaries, and the types of guns we're talking about here all
> > exist not to protect, but to oppress and control.
>
> So in your idealistic world, there are no police or militaries.  Now...
> what happens when somebody breaks into your apartment and smashes your
> computer on the ground because you had an opinion that differed from
> their own, causing them to be angry at you?  Guess you sit there without
> a computer now.

I guess I would, but what made them do it?  How'd they get to that point?

People don't act out that way unless they feel otherwise powerless.  We
can go a long way to making people feel that they have power over
themselves and their own lives and that will, in turn, give them less
cause to interfere with others.

Our culture isn't very big on respect, patience, understanding, tolerance,
or sacrifice.  More of this, more of the time will mean fewer people in a
condition where they will act out violently against others.

> > Only because there are people like you who would rather have fear and
> > violence.
>
> Okay, let's go ahead and lump everybody together who would see any harm
> done to anybody - what are you going to do about them?  Brainwash
> everybody?  Lock them away?  Send them elsewhere?  There are violent
> people, Jeme, what are you going to do about them in your world?

Why are they violent?  Let's look at the root causes and see if we can't
take care of them.  Each person is different.  Let's try to pull together
and meet their needs.

> > > I hate to be the one to break it to you, Jeme... but there are some
> > > very bad people out there.
> >
> > I LOVE being the one to break it to you, Rob, there aren't.  There are
> > no bad guys and no good guys.  We're just people and each and every
> > one of us is trying to do our best in the best way we know how.
>
> You are wrong.  There are bad people out there.

Bad People... Out There.  Oooooh... bogeymen!

So, what makes a bad person bad?

> There are those who are predisposed to commit crimes (roughly 6% of
> males).

If we change the law, do we change the percentages?

> There are those who rape adults at any chance they get. There are those
> who rape children at any chance they get.

Why?  It's my understanding that rape is usually about control and
dominance.  These people feel helpless and abuse others in order to
satisfy their desire to feel in control.  What can we do to give them that
sense of empowerment without the rape?

> There are those who kill tens of innocent people because they can get
> away with it.

I'm sure there's some of the above in this, but there's probably something
else... perhaps simply a lack of respect for life.  Why?  What can we do
to increase the amount of respect for life globally?

You know, I was talking to a friend the other day about her bus ride
downtown.  She said, "This creepy guy was staring at me... He was really
weird.  I was afraid he was going to do something."

"What did you do?" I asked.

"I asked him if he knew what time it was."

"What'd he do?"

"He smiled really big and said he didn't have a watch.  So I smiled back
and asked him how his day was going and then said it was my stop and got
off the bus.  He seemed less creepy the next day."

People who feel like they are different need to be made to feel like they
are welcome.  There is way too much isolation.  People are scared and
lonely and they start to think that they're the only ones with crazy
thoughts.  They end up acting out and hurting people.  If you make people
feel like they are not weirdos, they will not act like weirdos.

> There *ARE* bad people out there, Jeme - and having a rational
> discussion with them is NOT going to stop them at all.  As an example;
> the only cured pedophile is a dead pedophile.

Ah, but there's a difference between a pedophile and a pedophiliac!

I know a man who is a pedophile.  He is a great guy and I daresay I love
him.

I don't know what made him the way he is.  He had a very domineering,
cruel mother and seemingly helpless father who worked too hard too much of
the time.  He's in his early sixties now and has never abused anyone in
his entire life as far as I know or have any reason to believe.  He has
three daughters who are all good people and he and his wife have been
together for more than thirty-five years.

He likes little girls.  He probably has to struggle with it every day.
He takes photos of them (all well within bounds of legality and with good
taste, but it's obvious to anyone sensitive to such things that they are
a little eroticized).  He never misses an opportunity to talk to one in a
shopping center or restaurant.

We don't choose the things we like and the things we don't like.  We don't
get out a menu and decide what turns us on or what gets us off.  But we
have the ability to learn what is appropriate and what is inappropriate
and apply that to our lives.

There are and always have been people like this guy.  Their pain is
certainly endless and deep... much worse than a closetted gay person
because their desire can NEVER be satisfied without hurting another
person.  They must find other outlets for their frustrations.

One such fellow of this sort was Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, AKA Lewis
Carroll.  He took photos of little girls and wrote stories to and about
the special ones in his life.  He turned to the clergy to help him put
down his "sinful urges" and to mathematics to occupy his mind during the
long sleepless hours of torment.

A predeliction does not mean a certainty of abuse.

> There are a few choices, here... because these crimes ARE going to
> happen.  You can kill them or lock them up after they're caught, you can
> try to identify them early and kill them or lock them up, or you can let
> them run around raping six year old girls and boys.  What's your choice?
> Apparently it's the last choice, because the first two essentially
> require taking away freedoms and require a police force of some kind.

Again, the abuses are not a necessity.  They can be minimized, at least,
so that their impact is very small.  As a result of enduring that impact,
we live without fear and without support of violence.

> There are people who will do things regardless of how irrational these
> things seem to you or I.

Yup.  They'll drape bridges in cloth and try to put a man on the moon.
They'll write sprawling poems about fish and albatross.  They'll say that
they can turn water into wine and they'll walk across hot coals.

But I don't think that's what mean.

There's no difference between a jailor and a kidnapper.

> > You're probably not going to have to deal with any of "those people".
> > They are incredibly few and far between.  And if you treat people
> > well, they will treat you well... almost without fail.
> > Statistically, nobody wants to hurt you.
>
> Sure, but if I can take protection to make sure I'm not part of the
> minority victimized, who are you to stop me?

Did I try to stop you?  I just said you were a homicidal lunatic.  I'd
prefer if you weren't and I'd like to help get to the bottom of your
problem (it seems to be based on personal insecurity and doubt of your own
physical prowess, but I'm not psychologist) and resolve it so you aren't.

> > Assuming all of your crap about dangerous maniacs that lurk around
> > every corner, what happens if you're carrying a gun?
>
> Not every corner, Jeme... it isn't an every-day type thing... if it
> were, this discussion would be moot.  It doesn't have to happen to
> everybody I know for it to be a threat to me.

Is it a threat to you?  Do you feel threatened?

> The odds of my house burning down are pretty damned low, but I still
> make sure there's fire insurance on it.  The odds of me coming down with
> a major medical condition requiring tens of thousands of dollars to pay
> for are low, but I make sure I have medical insurance, just in case.

I recently watched a pretty decent documentary about the Amish.  You know,
they think carrying insurance is a sin because it implies that you doubt
that your community will care for you.  It undermines the trust in your
fellow man.

> Yes, it matters who it is that is shot.  If I am shot, I'm hurt.  If
> they're shot, they're hurt... the latter doesn't cause me any direct
> problems.

You don't have any compassion for other people?

> > Wouldn't it be better to just give them what they want?  Then nobody
> > dies and you can feel good about improving your fellow man's
> > situation.
>
> What if it is a man attempting to rape my girlfriend?  Yeah, I'll just
> let him have what he wants and we can all go on happily ever after.

What he wants isn't always what he thinks he wants.

> What if he wants my car, that I work hard to pay for?  I just give it to
> him and then I have no car... I have to walk 30+ miles home... and he
> gets a car for not doing a damned thing except a crime?

It isn't a crime if you give it to him.

> I'm not here to give away everything I own to those who want it, Jeme.
> If you are, let me be the first to request you give me your bicycle,
> computers, clothes, electronic devices of any kind, and why don't you
> keep paying for your apartment while I live there.

If you really need something, Rob, we can talk about it.

I'm not kidding.  Do you need something that you can't get for yourself?
I certainly have some things that I don't need and if you do, then I'd be
happy to help.

People can rationally decide where the greater need lies and appropriate
the resources accordingly.

> > You want to carry a gun so you can tell people what to do and they
> > will have to comply or be killed.
>
> If telling them what to do means "don't stab me" or "don't take my
> money" or "don't take my car" then I have absolutely no problem
> whatsoever with that.

What if they want to do the same thing?  And what if they have a broader
idea of what telling others what to do means?  That's when you shoot them,
right?

And if a third person thinks you did the wrong thing in shooting that guy,
he should shoot you?

And what should a fourth person do if that third person was acting out of
line?

Really, it all comes down to YOU and what YOU want and think is right
behavior.  Everybody else is being dumb and should be shot or locked up or
something.

> > Don't you see that you then become someone attempting to do that other
> > person harm?  And if you consider your own thinking "reasonable", then
> > wouldn't every other reasonable person take the same stance and
> > therefore have no problem killing you first?
>
> They made the decision to begin the conflict... I don't really have a
> problem being the one to put an end to it.

I think you ignored my second question.

But it's pretty easy to argue that, in the case of what you'd call
"robbery", you started the conflict by asserting control over the
resources in the first place.

> And, in reality, that number seems horribly optimistic.  It seems the
> odds vary between 2 and 4% of being involved with a violent crime
> between the ages of 12 and 17, according to the NCVS.  That's only five
> years of your life, and already a 2-4% chance... that doesn't bode well
> for your statistics.

No, the 2.5% number is per year and averaged over the entire nation.
You'll also note that there was a steep downward trend to the curve.

> According to the NCVS, a third of rape victims have never met their
> rapists, only a third knew them intimately, only 30% were 'friends' with
> their rapist.

Right, so most of them are not the sort of thing where you're just
attacked on the street or something.

> Why does it need to be a large percentage for you to allow people to
> take precautions?

How am I not allowing people to take precautions?

> It seems to me if 5% of women are raped by strangers, it's worth doing
> something about it... if 0.5% are raped, something is still not right.

It's not right that it's happening at all... but the gun isn't going to
stop the crime, at best, it makes both of the participants assault
victims.

And how far does it go before the gun is pulled?  And how far until it is
fired?

> > Uh, without justification?  That's a VERY weird way to put it.  I
> > think you mean "without state authority".  The crime of murder is
> > intentionally taking a life without the blessing of the ruling class.
>
> No, I meant without justification.  Look up the definition for homicide.

People can justify things in all kinds of ways.  You mean that the
justification is sanctioned by the ruling class.

> I'm sorry you feel so oppressed in life to think there's some ruling
> class of people deciding who lives and dies, apparently arbitrarily.

Um... there is.  Do you really think there's no such thing as a ruling
class?  Who writes the laws, enforces, and interprets them?  It's not a
democratic process.  You're big on saying that yourself, if I recall.

If only 6% of men have a predisposition to crime, why do fully 1/3 of all
black men under the age of 40 have a criminal record?  Why is the
retirement age set at 65 when the life expectancy of a black American male
is only 64?  There is a ruling class and there are oppressed classes.
There is respect in the law for some ideals and no respect for others.

If you kill a person for a sandwich, you will go to prison.  If you kill
tens of thousands of people for billions of dollars, you get an
ambassadorship.  Values depend on class and the values reflected in the
law are the values of the ruling class.

> Common sense dictates you can decide whether the law is being broken or
> not a great deal of the time.

Um, no.  The legal system has well-defined methods for determining whether
or not a law was broken and your common sense has nothing to do with it.

> Not everybody is entitled to due process of law.  Why do you think
> everybody *is* entitled to this?  I must have missed that somewhere.

Yeah, it's in the Constitution of the United States of America.
Interesting document.  It's got some deep flaws, but the Amendments are
pretty good.  Here's part of the fifth:

<quote src="Constitution of the United States of America">
No person.... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law;
</quote>

So that says you can't take away someone's life, liberty, or property
without due process of law.

Also, the highly controversial 14th Amendment...

<quote src="Constitution of the United States of America">
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws.
</quote>

So there you go.

> > I'm telling you that it's just fine to have an opinion about what
> > other people do, but you should have limits in how far you can go in
> > imposing your opinion on other people.
>
> Yes, but you seem to wish to arbitrarily impose these limits in such a
> way as to allow anybody to do anything any time.

I hate to break it to you, Rob, but you made that up entirely.  I don't
wish to impose limits on anybody.  Haven't you been reading this?

I only want people to impose limits on themselves.

> That isn't right.

Nope.  Imposing limits on other people just isn't right.  I agree.

> It's well within reason to declare it wrong, illegal, and criminal for
> one person to walk up to another and shoot them without a very good
> reason.

It's not within reason for you to declare something illegal.  And it
really depends on what you mean by "criminal".

But you can say whatever you like is wrong.  Sure.  Totally within reason
to make a declaration of opinion.

> > Woah.  In REALITY, there are just plain people out there who have
> > different values and, therefore, a different idea of what "the Right
> > Thing" might be.  They might ignore your "encouragement" because it
> > rejects the validity of their view and their place in the society and
> > culture whose values you would purport to implement.  Civilization can
> > either be a compromise of values to achieve a balance among all people
> > or a dictatorship in which the ruling elite oppress everyone else.
> > I'm working on the former.
>
> Different values?  Geeze, Jeme... we're talking about rapists and
> murderers here, not people who disagree about the merits of gay
> marriage.

Different values.  I think they're wrong, they think I'm wrong.  You get a
lot of that out there in the real world.

> We aren't talking about white-collar crime, we're talking about violent
> crime - things universally accepted as wrong in civilized countries.

I love that you exempt white-collar crime.  You can crush whole
communities and kill people indirectly and that's not universally accepted
as wrong, but direct influence in the life of another individual is a
capital offense.

> > > You waive your right to due process in the heat of a violent crime.
> >
> > WOAH WOAH WOAH!  Without due process, there is no crime!  Due process
> > is what allows us to determine whether or not a crime has been
> > committed.
>
> That doesn't follow - there is no crime until after due process, but due
> process decides if the thing was a crime?

It's just an event until the due process of law can determine whether or
not it was also a crime.  What don't you understand?

> Either it is a crime or not, Jeme, due process of law simply helps makes
> the decision.

Due process IS the decision-making.  Why don't you get that?

It's exactly like determining whether something is good or bad.  There is
a set of criteria and a time of consideration and then a determination is
made.

If you recall (or perhaps you don't), when the Drug Enforcement Act was
rammed through the Senate during the Reagan Administration, Daniel Patrick
Moynihan stood up and said, "Passing this law will create a crimewave in
our cities."  He didn't mean that anything about the activities within the
city would change as a result of the law passing, he meant that the
regular behavior in the city would then be considered a crime and it
happens at such frequency that it would be called a crimewave.

It ain't a crime unless the law says so and the law doesn't say so until
due process has run its course.

> It's possible to declare something criminal without due process of law.

Uh, no.  A class of actions can be declared criminal by a legislative body
(that could be the people directly through referendum or initiative
process or by representative legislation in state or federal Congress).  A
particular action can be deemed a member of the criminal class by due
process of law.

It's not possible for an individual to do either of those things unless
that individual is a very high ranking executive (who can create crimes
via administrative rules) or a judge (who can make a finding of fact and
law and determine that a particular action was criminal).

> It does require, however, common sense, so you may have a hard time
> being able to make the distinction yourself.

It requires a bit more.  I can't believe you called ME ignorant and you
don't know what it takes to determine the legality of an action.

> > The shooting is the worse tragedy because it is more likely to be
> > fatal and, therefore, untreatable.  The raped woman can recover.  The
> > dead cannot.
>
> Why should the woman be punished so severely for something she had no
> hand in?

It's a cruel world.  Bad things happen to good people.  There is no such
thing as "fair" outside of your dreams.

Thankfully, it wasn't something from which there is no recovery.

> The bad-guy in this case very much decided his own fate, the woman did
> not.  You're taking away her freedom, he already decided he was willing
> to gamble his.


Now you're implying that the criminally insane, those who cannot tell
right from wrong, are making rational decisions and should pay the
consequences that you understand regardless of whether or not they
understand them themselves?

> That isn't fair.

Ha!  Fair?  There is no "fair".  That's total bullshit and you know it.

Random carcinoma?  Animal attacks?  Accident?  Negligence?  Disease and
death from malnutrition due to poverty?

Shit happens.  We can do what we can to decrease the amount of suffering,
but making one person suffer in addition to another or instead of another
doesn't decrease the amount of pain and suffering.  In fact, it's an
increase.

> You may wish to re-check your statistics... you're characterizing an
> entire church by the actions of a few.

Do you know the real numbers?  What percentage of people on the street are
pedophiles?  What percentage of Catholic priests and bishops?

Do you really believe that the proportions are the same?

> > Like, I might be willing to eat a slug if somebody was going to give
> > me a few hundred dollars or something.  But I'm not going to carry
> > around a few slugs "just in case".  That'd be crazy.
>
> I'll bet you lock your door 'just in case' and lock up your bike 'just
> in case' ... don't you?

I don't lock my house, no.  I do lock up my bike and I think that's really
sad.  It was great to go to the Multnomah County Bike Fair or to any and
all of the events of Pedalpalooza over the past month because there was
such an abundance of bicycles, you didn't have to lock up your bike
anywhere you went.  Everybody that was there already had a bike and had no
reason to take yours.

Property is theft.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org