1) Ah, you mean that some people think human life should be valued over material possessions? Yeah, that's a pretty old idea, dating back to well before the internet. Not surprising that people take that idea to an extreme.
2) Where can I find people saying that my daughter deserves to be raped because she isn't working to eradicate poverty? Not that I doubt that there are people who say such things, because you can just about always find someone who is saying something stupid and extreme and nonrepresentative of just about anyone else on the web if you look for it.
3) What I find odd is that someone would seek out such comments and then consider them especially meaningful.
1) During home invasion a family does not know if the intruder is armed or not, and what level of damage he/she is willing to cause to accomplish the burglary. They don’t have time to engage in sociology rhetoric about life vs. material possessions.
The issue itself “life vs. material possession” is very wide, from dangerous working conditions on a Hoover Dam, to a man protecting his wallet which contains money for his wife’s medicine….
2) First you asked what world I live in, and now you confirm that you’re aware that such comments do exist, but now dismisses them as “radical”. Yes, they do exist, and not always in a “radical form” but rather eloquently spoken with an academic language, which suggests that the speaker is at least well-educated.
Liberals Outraged After Miss USA Suggests Self-Defense To Prevent Rape
https://www.mrconservative.com/2014...ss-usa-suggests-self-defense-to-prevent-rape/
Sorry, Miss USA: Self-Defense Is Not The Solution To Sexual Assault
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/11/miss-usa-self-defense_n_5482117.html
One speaker cleverly linked her statement to George Zimmerman’s case and objected to the concept of “self-defense” in general.
The above examples is not that “radical”. But “radical” came to this subject as well. Another article, on the same subject, which I can not locate, had readers’ comments at the bottom. One of the comments led to a discussion about self-defense from rape in a home invasion situation. Few “liberal posters” supported an idea that Miss America should use her position to help the causes which eradicate poverty, then she would not have to worry about home invasions into her pretty little house, and harm to her pretty little body, and until she gleefully floats in the upper echelon of society with her newly acquired princess position, she should always worry about “the less fortunate” fighting for their share and yes, perhaps at her expense; oh, and the rape in some cases is just a part of an expression of frustration and can be linked to a form of class struggle.
http://www.startribune.com/charges-...-he-burglarized-twice-rapes-victim/212540071/ (the comments are gone, probably either too old, or got out of hand and eliminated)
In another case, where an elderly women was bugled, raped and injured, by a black teen, few people using rather academic terminology made refs to history, by suggesting that this woman, due to her age, probably did not mind when “back then” she sat in front of the bus, and blacks sat in the back, and now she is inadvertently suffering the consequences of being the “silent supporter” of past discrimination. Few other comments were about “her contribution to his imprisonment for the first 2 times he burgled her home. He is poor, sees burglary as only way out of poverty, and by putting him in jail she ended his hopes for the future, therefore his revenge”.
3) What I find odd, is that someone who participates in various socio-political web discussions, does not recognize the fact that very radical views can be expressed by educated well-spoken people and presented as socio-economic analysis rather then a left- or right-wing mindless exclamation.
There have been many discussions on the web about gun control, right of self-defense, stand-your-ground laws and all related. I don’t read the mindless exclamations on either side, but I do read comments containing proper language and a form of reason.
Here are few examples (in my own words) of the comments from liberals/from the left.
- Government is responsible for protecting citizens, and a government entity (police) should be called in case of a robbery.
- People should not take law into their own hands.
- By killing a burglar, a home owner is infringing on burglar’s human rights to stand trial, and to prove his innocence.
- Protecting your home with a weapon is: class warfare, protection of a class privilege of the haves against have-nots, and prevention of re-distribution of wealth and justice;
Fortunately, I saved one of the comments in a “word” format, but not the link:
One poster wrote:
“Grievance based violence” is contrary to self-defense. Torching cars, looting businesses, etc., is a form of protest, a revolution against oppression by emotionally outraged, trapped and cornered masses of people. Self-defense is individualistic and exists as an oppressive form of violence, and presumes the right of a single person to possessions and property as a form of entitlement and class privilege. “Grievance based violence" by contrast occurs as a response to intolerable oppression, and an expression of the underclass rising up. Oppressive violence is a function of class privilege, where revolutionary violence is a form of revolutionary justice. The upper or middle class homeowner protecting his possessions from a thieve; for his sole benefit and therefore practicing "oppressive violence", while the mob is practicing revolutionary justice for the many. It is clear that class or group status is what defines whether violence is legitimate or not.
The other poster contradicted:
Liberals have no problem with violence. They have a problem with violence that does not have a progressive source agenda.
In another discussion, a poster arguing against self- and property defense brought up a passage from Les Miserables (Hugo), as en example of proper response to a theft of your property: Jean Valjean steals silver from the Monastery, police catch him, but the Priest graciously denies the act of theft, confirms it was a gift, and hands Valjean another piece of silver.
I hardly call such comments on the “fringe”, given that the same ideas were expressed by millions during revolutions. It is VERY alarming that such are expressed in USA.
I have a question:
what EXACT objections (other than hidden motivations of social justice, redistribution, and all sorts of class issues) do Liberals have
against a law-abiding family or home owner owning a gun for home protection of his property and family from the buglers if he keeps his/her gun safe?
this infuriates me too, but i find i'm swinging from incredibly angry to incredibly sad today and I'm not letting any bigoted shit get by today.
