Is it OK to Probably Injure Traffic Blocking Protester to Possibly Save Life?
Let's be explicit so everyone is on the same page. This is unfortunately not a purely hypothetical question except for the preciseness I am hypothesizing.
You are driving your mother to the hospital along a route that you have every reason to believe is clear. But it's not, because of a protest. A protest that would not legally be allowed to totally block traffic as they are doing. Because of cars stopped behind you, the protest adds 20% to the probability your mother will die. If you slowly plow through the protest, there is an 80% chance that you will injure someone fairly seriously but no chance you will kill somebody. Are you wrong to do that? Should it be illegal? Does it matter what the protest is about?
(I think most of you will say it's OK. To those that did, what if the mother death probability went up by only 5%, the protester death probability went from zero to 70% and the policy being protested was clearly bad?)
I feel like it's probably the case that people tried blocking traffic in Latin America, people got ran over, and the protestors quickly moved to setting tires on fire in the middle of the road.
I think in first world countries people don't have as much access to old tires, but I'm sure they'd figure out some way to block traffic while at the same time minimizing risk to themselves.
I am not sure though what's your problem with pissing on public grass.
And I will never understand how in the USA private home gardens aren't fenced lol, don't think I ever saw an accessible private home garden in an urban setting in Italy. That's like begging to be robbed.
No one cares about the grass. But people who are sitting on a bench reading a book or lying on a blanket under a tree typically don't want a drunk pissing fifteen feet away from them. I guess that's weird to you.
w/r/t to the dog, I wasn't talking about an urban garden. I was talking about a patch of grass (i.e., a yard) in suburbia.
In the list you mentioned btw I am pretty sure you are legally allowed to fight against people making a graffiti to have them stop. Again if you run toward them armed, they can ****ING MOVE AWAY and stop destroying property.
The mayor of Florence run toward them (radical communist environmentalist defacing an historical crucial building of Florence with paint) to tackle them ffs, and he is center left, and basically the totality of the Italian population agreed it was very moral for him to do so,
I'll let you in on a little secret. I don't live in the moral equivalent of the Palazzo Vecchio. And even as a tourist, if I saw someone spray painting the Palazzo Vecchio, I would done exactly what the mayor of Florence did. I would have said "WTF are you doing" and tried to physically encourage the people to go somewhere else.
I don't own the exterior of my building in NYC. It most certainly would not be legal for me to attack someone with a tire iron because they were tagging my building. Frankly, I don't think that would be legal even if I did own the building.
Btw you keep thinking that running over = death while they would just move and/or be minimally damaged, if for example you stop, check what it is, go down from the car, realize it's insane protestors, go back and start moving toward them, who's gonna die? They can move very easily.
Or you go over their chest/leg at like 20 km/h or whatever, far from being automatically lethal.
As if this matters to you.
We all know that you think it should be legal to plow into protesters going 80 km/hr.
As if this matters to you.
We all know that you think it should be legal to plow into protesters going 80 km/hr.
You put innocent people at risk if you do, like those in the cars behind you (because after the collision at such speed your car might not keep the road properly and/or the bodies of the protestors might become projectiles and so on).
I want to fix a problem, in the case of road blocks, the road blocks themselves.
Then yes I think some specific groups of protestors should be treated by the state as terrorists, potentially even with the death penalty for leaders and big donors and so on, but that's not about going over the troops at high speed with normal cars in public streets.
I thought you wanted to kill the first 10-15 for the deterrent effect on the others.
This Luciomtopia is beginning to sound less and less like the idyllic land of prairie fields and puppies and rainbows it originally seemed to be.
In other news, for some reason, I seem to keep thinking thinking about Mad Max recently.
Spoiler
You put innocent people at risk if you do, like those in the cars behind you (because after the collision at such speed your car might not keep the road properly and/or the bodies of the protestors might become projectiles and so on).
I want to fix a problem, in the case of road blocks, the road blocks themselves.
Then yes I think some specific groups of protestors should be treated by the state as terrorists, potentially even with the death penalty for leaders and big donors and so on, but that's
This is what you said previously:
So not only it should be legal, it should be expressely rewarded by the state to use unlimited violence to remove the ****ers who are abusing public property against the will of the owners (the public which votes and delegates the use of the property to elected authorities).
Now we are supposed to believe that you care about these sorts of nuances. Give me a break.
Mel Gibsons character was notorious for blocking traffic, of course they had to get rid of his communist ass!
I am starting to think that only in the fantasyland of Luciomtopia does he have any power or ability to fight the commies.
need more info, is there a vibrator in the center console or glove compartment?
A one word compromise that Rococo and Luciom might accept: Singapore.
Why does Rococo have to compromise anything?
Singapore is 90% my view 10% rococo, but I disagree with Singapore idea that if you punish people they start behaving.
I will punish fewer people, but when I do I remove them from society. I really don't believe wrongdoers can be fixed, especially not in western societies.
We are so open, doing bad against strangers isn't a momentary problem, it's you not being fit for our society
This is what you said previously:
Now we are supposed to believe that you care about these sorts of nuances. Give me a break.
There is no incoherence. It means going over them even if (example).they lay with the head upfront (which means very probable death if you run over even at 30 km/h).
They shouldn't be able to blackmail us, their lives lose all worth the moment they become active criminals.
We should never integrate their wellbeing in our utility function when thinking of solutions.
But everyone else should still be considered.
Crazy, toys in the attic he is crazy....
Can we get back to the zombies?
And though I am mainly just fooling around with my suggestion, I actually would find it interesting to know how far toward Rococo or Luciom the complete Singapore system tilts. Here is a thorough explanation of it:
