Bingowings said:
But if there is no obvious physical peril in the situation why risk creating some for yourself over something that can eventually be replaced or the loss of it rationalised? I can't think of any inanimate object I own worth using violence to protect.
If you can prevent the situation by any non-violent means it makes sense to try but if the theft is going to happen and only an act of violence can prevent it why bother?
its the principal of the thing. The thief is helping himself to something he has no right to.
Bingowings said: We should take appropriate steps to secure what we would rather not lose and set something aside if we do need to replace those things should we lose them.
all of that is easier said then done. Also, there is no way you can 100% guaranty that someone won't breaking into your house and rob the place. When a theft happens, it is the thief's fault not the victim's.
Gaffer Tape said:
I agree with pretty much all you say in this post. What caused me to lose my temper was that I was beginning to get the impression you were continually implying that I was in favor of all the things you are currently speaking out against when I never said anything to indicate that.
Are if you meaning this for me or Bingowings or both? If me or both, I'm sorry for upsetting you. I never once thought you'd be in favor of hitting someone holding a child. But I did misunderstood your first post in this thread I didn't realize that you weren't defending Gibson. I also hadn't realized that you hadn't listened to the tapes.
Gaffer Tape said:
So let me just make myself perfectly clear.
First off, I didn't even mean to get involved in this thread in the first place. In general, I agree with C3PX's paraphrasing of the Firefly quote that everyone is some kind of son of a bitch. Everybody's going to say or do things they're not proud of, but most people have the good fortune to not have their poor judgment exposed and analyzed on an international level. So I have no idea about Mel Gibson. I admit I didn't listen to the tapes or keep up because, honestly, I don't care.
ok, you don't have to care, but I can't understand agreeing with C3PX's statement without listening to the tapes. Sure no one's perfect, but some people are worse sons of b****es than others. How can you conclude that this isn't true of Gibson without listening to the tapes? Perhaps if you listened to the tapes, you'd find out that Gibson was more than just the normal average type son of a b****, maybe you'd conclude that he was a really bad son of a b****. There is only one way to know for certain.
I'm not saying you should listen to the tapes, just don't draw conclusions without doing so.
Gaffer Tape said:
But I have to admit, if I heard that a known manipulator and swindler was caught by someone he/she had swindled and received a massive beatdown in response, I would have absolutely no sympathy, shrug, and say, "Well, that person got what he/she deserved."
yeah, I see what you are saying. I probably wouldn't feel too sorry for the swindler either. But I would be forced to recognize that the beatdown was technically illegal.