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 this thread has veered from its true calling, which is obviously discussing the most efficient vehicular methods of dispensing with the red menace. OP keeps trying to hijack his thread for his own ends, but just ignore him.
What do we think of this bad boy?
I feel this thread has veered from its true calling, which is obviously discussing the most efficient vehicular methods of dispensing with the red menace. OP keeps trying to hijack his thread for his own ends, but just ignore him.
What do we think of this bad boy?
That's the kind of thing I was picturing. Looks like it would be pretty efficient at clearing roadways.
How appalled are you by their system? Do you think Luciom would be more or less appalled?
In general, I am not a fan or Singapore's use of corporal punishment or its extreme criminal punishments. It seems like protections for free speech and privacy are less than I would prefer.
But there are many governments in the world that are far, far worse. In fact, Singapore is closer to almost everyone's ideal than it is to Luciom's ideal. Something approaching Luciom's ideal is tough to find unless you go back a few hundred years.
In general, I am not a fan or Singapore's use of corporal punishment or its extreme criminal punishments. It seems like protections for free speech and privacy are less than I would prefer.
But there are many governments in the world that are far, far worse. In fact, Singapore is closer to almost everyone's ideal than it is to Luciom's ideal. Something approaching Luciom's ideal is tough to find unless you go back a few hundred years.
Btw i want to make clear i wrote singapore is 90 % my side 10% rococo for the specific thing about street use, not in general.
Singapore is a very collectivist country so it's closer to many people ideals than mine overall.
Something approaching Luciom ideal , wrt how to deal with protestors who block roads, actually *passed as law recently in florida* (law is currently stayed by judges in part pending litigation, not the part about immunity from prosecution if you run over people who block the street afaik) so really, no need to go back centuries.
And although we don't have the immunity yet in italy, we already severely increased the gravity of "street blocking" crimes
I meant that we would have to go back several centuries to find a government that generally suited you.
And yes, Singapore, like most every country in that area of the world, is wayyyyy too collectivist for your taste.
I meant that we would have to go back several centuries to find a government that generally suited you.
And yes, Singapore, like most every country in that area of the world, is wayyyyy too collectivist for your taste.
Singapore is more collectivist/paternalist than many other countries in the present for some things. For some things they are truly ****ed up in the head (like vaping)
For example :
In Singapore, all land is held by the state; as such, land is not the subject of absolute ownership but of tenure. The state in turn issues various grants or leases of the land
Like much of Europe, the drinking age is 18 to purchase and consume alcohol in Singapore. What's more, drinking in public areas between 10.30pm and 7am the next day is banned. Drinking in licensed premises past 11.59pm to 6am the next day is also banned.
/Under the Act, any person who is convicted of selling, offering for sale, possessing for sale, importing or distributing e-vaporisers, is liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for up to six months or to both for the first offence, and to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to imprisonment for up to 12 months or to both, for the second or subsequent offence.
Any person who is convicted of possession, use and purchase of e-vaporisers is liable to a fine not exceeding $2,000./
/B. Is Broadcasting Porn Online Legal in Singapore ?
As per IMDA’s Internet Code of Practice, Internet Service Providers and Internet Content Providers licensed under the Broadcasting Act are required to use best efforts to ensure that prohibited material, such as pornographic material, is not broadcast to the public in Singapore.
The IMDA is empowered to impose fines on licensees found to have not done so.
C. Is Downloading or Possessing Porn Legal in Singapore ?
In Singapore, it is illegal to keep, possess or download porn under the Undesirable Publications Act and the Films Act. This is regardless of whether the porn is in physical or digital form, and even if the porn was for personal use.
If you are found to be possessing pornographic films, you can be fined up to $20,000 and/or jailed for up to 6 months under section 30(1) of the Films Act. The penalties are higher if you are found to have known, or to have had reasonable cause to believe, that the film in your possession was obscene.
First-time offenders can be fined up to a maximum of $40,000 and/or jail for up to 12 months, while subsequent offenders can be fined up to $80,000 and/or jail for up to 2 years. /
SINGAPORE JUST LEGALIZED GAY SEX WHICH WAS A CRIME UNTIL 2022
I am not sure why sklansky proposed that country as some sort of compromise between you and me rococo, i think we can both easily despise Singapore more than either the USA or Italy
I don't believe in corporal punishment much if at all (as a tool to change behavior). I am not bdsm, that's the left who mandates sado masks and stuff.
I am very very very pro death penalty (like any 10+ years sentence = death) as I don't believe jail can ever make you better as well but that's another topic.
Basically you are either recoverable for society, in which case stay at home under house arrest, or not, in which case bullet in the head asap and we are done with you.
.
Basically you are either recoverable for society, in which case stay at home under house arrest, or not, in which case bullet in the head asap and we are done with you.[/QUOTE]
Oh dear. Since Rococo wants to give illegally immigrating South American gang members a four star hotel and a thousand dollar debit card, finding an acceptable compromise for you two will be harder than I thought. But i'm still sure I can do it.
Oh dear. Since Rococo wants to give illegally immigrating South American gang members a four star hotel and a thousand dollar debit card, finding an acceptable compromise for you two will be harder than I thought. But i'm still sure I can do it.
What’s the issue with helping refugees seeking asylum?
Do you know what’s written on the Statue of Liberty?
What’s the issue with helping refugees seeking asylum?
Do you know what’s written on the Statue of Liberty?
to let them in without given them anything.
do you agree with a complete ban to any form of welfare for refugees, if they can automatically enter the country?
the ban includes school for their children and ER for any of them among other things. no free stuff.
not a ****ing penny ever
No I support the opposite.it’s a freedom thing, you wouldn’t get it
“ Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”
to let them in without given them anything.
do you agree with a complete ban to any form of welfare for refugees, if they can automatically enter the country?
the ban includes school for their children and ER for any of them among other things. no free stuff.
not a ****ing penny ever
I'm thinking that if one of them comes up with a cure for cancer we should let their kids go to public school.
I'm thinking that if one of them comes up with a cure for cancer we should let their kids go to public school.
You can give citizenship to people of merit then treat them as citizens, not refugees.
Refugee is someone you take in not for merit, with no quality filter.
And most importantly asylum seekers are often just people from poor countries without the skills to be able to enter legally (otherwise they wouldn't need to seek asylum, rather they would... Enter legally) which basically self-select them the opposite way of what a country should look for.
When the reason for asylum is real (like Ukraine war) you don't need to seek it, IE being from Ukraine automatically qualifies, which is what is happening currently, we waived all bureaucracy. Because that's a real asylum situation, not economic migrants abusing the asylum process
No I support the opposite.it’s a freedom thing, you wouldn’t get it
“ Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”
What you don't get, is that those masses didn't receive any state welfare when they were let in the country. Nothing
What do self defense laws have to say about this? Seems there may already be an avenue for one to legally defend themselves harming others to protect their own life or their passengers life.
What do self defense laws have to say about this? Seems there may already be an avenue for one to legally defend themselves harming others to protect their own life or their passengers life.
Are you asking whether self-defense laws would allow Luciom to run people over with his car to avoid being delayed?
No, the self defense question is for the scenario described by OP. Being delayed is not a reason for self defense, but one is allowed to argue that an illegal act (causing harm/death to another) is justified in the name of self defense.
I’m questioning/wondering whether a self defense argument at trial would have a chance of success for the scenario of “someone will likely die if I don’t move through the crowd”. After all the crowd is provoking your action for self preservation.
P.s. lucicom’s position is ludicrous so no interest in joining that debate.
Except that you run into the argument that if a certain degree of merit is required to get the benefits of America if you immigrate from another country, why should those benefits be given to those who immigrate from inside an American women when they demonstrate that their merit is not enough to give back to the country than what they are given. Should pure luck determine that those born outside our country have a much worse life than the 90% of Americans who presently should thank their lucky stars that their mom happened to live in the US?
