Teddy Roosevelt pursues the boat thieves (2015)

Post by okasaki » Sun, Nov 19, 2023, 2:32 PM UTC

ultimafan wrote: post #8

ajkjk wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The notion of objects being replaceable and therefore you shouldn't do much when they're taken is.. I think?... an invention of risk departments at modern corporations. Like sure if you're a department store you don't want to risk your employees getting hurt stopping a shoplifter, the downside far exceeds the upside. But as a person ? That's your stuff, and it makes total sense to want it , not a replacement, and to…

Agreed, and at the risk of saying something inflammatory, it really grinds my gears when I hear people argue against lethal defense of property with comments along the lines of, "Is your X really worth more than someone's life?", as if the moral and ethical burden should fall on the victim and not the aggressor. Property and ownings aren't free, you often cannot replace them without cost or replace them at all if the…

Post by cocacola1 » Sun, Nov 19, 2023, 2:39 PM UTC

throwaway6734 wrote: post #42

0xfffafaCrash wrote: post #35

Interesting that the US NPS leaves completely un-noted the description of a thief as a half-breed. Some of Roosevelt’s other commentary on Native Americans: “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.” Perhaps even now the NPS can’t help but turn a blind eye to the less…

don't try to apply modern moral standards on historical figures

Post by reese_john » Sun, Nov 19, 2023, 3:11 PM UTC

0xfffafaCrash wrote: post #35

Interesting that the US NPS leaves completely un-noted the description of a thief as a half-breed. Some of Roosevelt’s other commentary on Native Americans: “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.” Perhaps even now the NPS can’t help but turn a blind eye to the less…

  On October 16, 1901, shortly after moving into the White House, President Theodore Roosevelt invited his adviser, the African American spokesman Booker T. Washington, to dine with him and his family. The event provoked an outpouring of condemnation from white politicians and press in the American South.[1] This reaction affected subsequent White House practice and no other African American was invited to dinner for almost thirty years

  The response from the southern press and politicians was immediate, sustained and vicious. James K. Vardaman, a Democrat from Mississippi, complained that the White House was now, "so saturated with the odor of nigger that the rats had taken refuge in the stable;" the Memphis Scimitar declared it "the most damnable outrage which has ever been perpetrated by any citizen of the United States"

Post by rjmill » Sun, Nov 19, 2023, 3:27 PM UTC

ajkjk wrote: post #5

dmix wrote: post #4

> The men he was chasing were armed and dangerous. How might you have reacted to the theft of a replaceable boat when capturing the thieves was so time-consuming and dangerous? This might sound a bit self-helpy but I've found one of the best indicators of a great people is their passion for caring about things most other people wouldn't bother to put effort into and then turning that basic caring into something bigge…

The notion of objects being replaceable and therefore you shouldn't do much when they're taken is.. I think?... an invention of risk departments at modern corporations. Like sure if you're a department store you don't want to risk your employees getting hurt stopping a shoplifter, the downside far exceeds the upside. But as a person ? That's your stuff, and it makes total sense to want it , not a replacement, and to…

Post by chmod600 » Sun, Nov 19, 2023, 4:00 PM UTC

paulryanrogers wrote: post #52

ultimafan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Well, I mostly agree although I think lethal force is often not in the 'within reason' clause of my stance. For sure, there definitely are situations in which case it would be absurd to try to justify as within reason. But I would say burglaries, home invasions, muggings, carjackings or any theft that has an implication of violence towards the victim and the like squarely fall into the "within reason" category regar…

> ...a weapon that would actually be reasonable to use in a self defense scenario without harming yourself... Such a tired narrative. Guns are far more likely to kill oneself or a loved one in an accident or suicide than to stop an attacker or robber. If one must rely on such a device for defense then the state has already failed spectacularly. Fixing such situation with guns, or bigger cars, or moving away won't mak…