Teenage Girl Shot And Killed In Texas Because Of Stand Your Ground Law - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lankist;36718769]Yeah, that isn't empathy. Empathy is toward people. "Empathy is the capacity to recognize feelings that are being experienced by another sapient being." Feeling the same about chickens as you do people is fucking psychotic. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] Thank you for your input, captain nihilism. i look forward to your manifesto.[/QUOTE] Calling anyone "bad" or "good" is psychotic because that's just ignorant and false. If you can label a person based on an action without looking at any of the situation behind it, you're crazy.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36718738]One who suffers a disconnect or inability to be empathetic toward others. Such as one who compares human life to that of fowl.[/QUOTE] Not really. [quote]It is characterized by at least 3 of the following: Callous unconcern for the feelings of others. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society. There may be persistent irritability as an associated feature.[/quote] [quote]A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following: failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure; impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead; irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults; reckless disregard for safety of self or others; consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations; lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;[/quote] Comparing humanity to that of a chicken on a cosmic scale does not mean you instantly have a mental disorder despite showing no symptoms.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36718769] Thank you for your input, captain nihilism. i look forward to your manifesto.[/QUOTE] You utterly failed to rebut his claims. This is what I'm talking about. You resort to petty insults when you are wrong.

"capacity to recognize feelings that are being experienced by another sentient or [b]semi-sentient being."[/b] That doesn't mean "just humans". Nice job not posting that last line to appear right.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36718769]Thank you for your input, captain nihilism. i look forward to your manifesto.[/QUOTE] [b]why do you have to say bullshit like this instead of debating it like an actual fucking person[/b]

[QUOTE=Bletotum;36718758]You have repeatedly chosen to not rebut my claims on your explanation of life's importance. You are choosing to whine and dance around the topic rather than being direct.[/QUOTE] You're the one who brought up "life's importance." I was just saying fleeing a robbery is preferable to fighting, both statistically and legally. You're the one who got all metaphysical and shit. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=_jesterk;36718786]Comparing humanity to that of a chicken on a cosmic scale does not mean you instantly have a mental disorder despite showing no symptoms.[/QUOTE] you do realize sociopathy has no psychological definition, despite how much you cite wikipedia, and is generally used in layman parlance as being a slight form of apathetic psychopathy (and NEVER used by psychologists.) [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Loriborn;36718794]"capacity to recognize feelings that are being experienced by another sentient or [b]semi-sentient being."[/b] That doesn't mean "just humans". Nice job not posting that last line to appear right.[/QUOTE] Wikipedia doesn't know the difference between sentience, sapience and meta-cognition.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36718796]You're the one who brought up "life's importance." I was just saying fleeing a robbery is preferable to fighting, both statistically and legally. You're the one who got all metaphysical and shit.[/QUOTE] That still doesn't answer my rebuttal.

[QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;36718795][b]why do you have to say bullshit like this instead of debating it like an actual fucking person[/b][/QUOTE] Because Lankist loves to argue, but his debating style is calling people "nihilists", "sociopaths", and defending his morals with shoddy hippie poetry.

[QUOTE=Loriborn;36718794]"capacity to recognize feelings that are being experienced by another sentient or [b]semi-sentient being."[/b] That doesn't mean "just humans". Nice job not posting that last line to appear right.[/QUOTE] There's no line like that on the article. Chickens aren't semi-sentient though. That term seems like it would fit intelligent apes or something. Of course I could be getting the definition of semi-sentient completely wrong.

I'm seeing a lot of good stuff being tossed around in here.

[QUOTE=Loriborn;36718813]Because Lankist loves to argue, but his debating style is calling people "nihilists", "sociopaths", and defending his morals with shoddy hippie poetry.[/QUOTE] Don't forget ignoring people.

[QUOTE=Bletotum;36718808]That still doesn't answer my rebuttal.[/QUOTE] Nor does your metaphysical bullshit answer this: [QUOTE=Lankist;36717874]No it isn't. This is how the law works. This is why you run before you fight.[/QUOTE] But you haven't seen me bitching about it.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36718769]Yeah, that isn't empathy. Empathy is toward people. "Empathy is the capacity to recognize feelings that are being experienced by another sapient being." Feeling the same about chickens as you do people is fucking psychotic. [/quote] Yeah, and valuing a serial killer the same as Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Teresa is not "fucking psychotic." [QUOTE=Lankist;36718769] [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] Thank you for your input, captain nihilism. i look forward to your manifesto.[/QUOTE] Are you trying to say there is something wrong with nihilism?

[QUOTE=sdwise;36718821]Don't forget ignoring people.[/QUOTE] He never answered whether accidentally killing someone makes you a bad person either. Oh, do miscarriages make the mother a bad person, I mean, she did kill the baby! It wasn't her choice, but her body did kill it!

[QUOTE=sdwise;36718821]Don't forget ignoring people.[/QUOTE] You realize I can't respond to a dozen people at once. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=HolyCrusade;36718839]Are you trying to say there is something wrong with nihilism?[/QUOTE] Uhh yes, I am.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36718844]You realize I can't respond to a dozen people at once. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] Uhh yes, I am.[/QUOTE] Just go in order. I've been in your position plenty in mass debate.

[QUOTE=sdwise;36718857]Just go in order. I've been in your position plenty in mass debate.[/QUOTE] I am not responding to every asinine quip you people make. Only the shit with substance and shit you haven't said five times already.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36718861]I am not responding to every asinine quip you people make.[/QUOTE] We respond to every asinine quip you make, and there's a lot of them. It's only fair you do the same.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36718861]I am not responding to every asinine quip you people make. Only the shit with substance and shit you haven't said five times already.[/QUOTE] :/

[QUOTE=Lankist;36718838]Nor does your metaphysical bullshit answer this: But you haven't seen me bitching about it.[/QUOTE] [quote=Bletotum]This does not rebut my statement. I am saying that breaking into a home tells the owner that someone may mean to harm his/herself or family. The intentions of the criminal are unknown. The situation is already dangerous, in that all participants lack understanding of eachother and are afraid of eachother.[/quote] You said that the hypothetical robber was not initiating the dangerous situation by [b]breaking into someone else's home[/b]. I'm done arguing with you. You won't stop making bullshit responses.

[QUOTE=sdwise;36718696]It's not a matter of empathy either. Death is sad, yes, but justifiable under certain circumstances. Aggressive action has no legitimacy. Ever. The initial aggressor must be staved off in whatever way you deem most fitting, be it appeasement or causing him to suddenly find himself without a head. Deal with the illegitimacies of aggression in your own way, but leave others to do the same. Do not advocate the stripping of your neighbors right to defend himself against aggression.[/QUOTE] Total lack of substance.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36718861]I am not responding to every asinine quip you people make. Only the shit with substance and shit you haven't said five times already.[/QUOTE] The only problem here is that you appear to nitpick through all of the rebuttals until you find one that's suitable.

How could you prove empathy if you wanted to? If you subtracted 'you' from the equation - would empathy still exist?

[QUOTE=Loriborn;36718868]We respond to every asinine quip you make, and there's a lot of them. It's only fair you do the same.[/QUOTE] Yeah twelve people respond to every single thing I say. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bletotum;36718877]You said that the hypothetical robber was not initiating the dangerous situation by [b]breaking into someone else's home[/b]. I'm done arguing with you. You won't stop making bullshit responses.[/QUOTE] Breaking and entering does not constitute a life-threatening situation by any legal definition.

[QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;36718880]The only problem here is that you appear to nitpick through all of the rebuttals until you find one that's suitable.[/QUOTE] Again, Lankist ignores the good arguments, finds the few he feels he has even a slight chance against and targets them. He selectively argues to avoid the potholes in his moral debate.

[QUOTE=sdwise;36718879]Total lack of substance.[/QUOTE] Lack of literacy. I responded to roughly the same point twice. I implied no consequences for philosophy. The law, on the other hand, does not bow to your world view. It bows to objective, reconciliatory justice. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;36718880]The only problem here is that you appear to nitpick through all of the rebuttals until you find one that's suitable.[/QUOTE] Then how about you guys all huddle up and come up with one thing for me to respond to. It's interesting how the last half page has just been you guys bitching about me not responding to everyone rather than actually saying anything of consequence.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36718890] Breaking and entering does not constitute a life-threatening situation by any legal definition.[/QUOTE] Maybe this time :/ It. Is. Aggression. Legally, it is an assault on property and defending your property is allowed in states with Castle Doctrine.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36718890]Breaking and entering does not constitute a life-threatening situation by any legal definition.[/QUOTE] But surely if the assailant didn't want to create a life-threatening situation, they wouldn't have broken into someone else's house, correct? Explain to me why I should give as much love and compassion to a person who obviously doesn't hold the same feelings. I'll love a lot of people, but as soon as that person shows that they intend harm, that love goes right out the window.

[QUOTE=sdwise;36718922]Maybe this time :/ It. Is. Aggression. Legally, it is an assault on property and defending your property is allowed in states with Castle Doctrine.[/QUOTE] No it isn't. It's a fuckin' misdemeanor.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36718910]Lack of literacy. I responded to roughly the same point twice. I implied no consequences for philosophy. The law, on the other hand, does not bow to your world view. It bows to objective, reconciliatory justice. [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] Then how about you guys all huddle up and come up with one thing for me to respond to.[/QUOTE] Please tell us why it is okay to value one species over another but it's [I]not[/I] okay to value members within a species over each other.