Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Crux sacra sit mihi lux! Non draco sit mihi dux! Vade retro Satana! Numquam suade mihi vana! Sunt mala quae libas. Ipse venena bibas!
Română
Sacred Heart Rebel
1.2K posts
Sacred Heart Rebel
@RebelWithHonor
Proud Catholic, amateur apologist. Spars in spirited debate, but calls out poppycock when it reeks.
Katılım Ağustos 2024
270 Takip Edilen42 Takipçiler
@catholicbob He does say care for the poor, but throughout the Bible God makes it clear that it necessary to use your free will to make an active choice. The govt taking more taxes to create more social programs is not people choosing to do God’s will
English
Something troubling to see is how many Catholics will put adherence to “Free Market Economics” above Christ’s command to care for the poor. Christ doesn’t say “care for the poor, but only through private charity”, He says “care for the poor”.
English
English
@WilliamReload @theblessedsalt That makes it WORSE 😭
Andrew Stratelates ⚓️(Continuing Anglican)@AStratelates
Eh. Kinda
English
Sorry, but how is this disproportionate? Don't vandals typically use a club or car to destroy mailboxes?
The Blessed Salt 🧂@theblessedsalt
This post is an excellent litmus test for understanding of just war theory. Despite the fact that I can see how effective this would be, I must oppose it because the damage it would do to my enemy (who bashes in my mailbox) would far outweigh the good of saving my mailbox. Its disproportionality is opposed by our duty in charity (and even justice) to watch out even for the good of our enemies. (Yes, by the way, I have had my mailbox bashed in by random vandals.)
English
@TanyaDe2233 @Storm_Tigrex @theblessedsalt Then say a prayer for him and move on. Any rational person does not want to cause pain and suffering
English
This post is an excellent litmus test for understanding of just war theory.
Despite the fact that I can see how effective this would be, I must oppose it because the damage it would do to my enemy (who bashes in my mailbox) would far outweigh the good of saving my mailbox. Its disproportionality is opposed by our duty in charity (and even justice) to watch out even for the good of our enemies.
(Yes, by the way, I have had my mailbox bashed in by random vandals.)
My moms caregiver@mymomcare
People who have lived in the country understand this!
English
@CplPunishment_ @theblessedsalt Unfortunately you are incorrect
English
@theblessedsalt @RebelWithHonor Ends do, in fact, justify means.
English
@GeococcyxCali @theblessedsalt You are a moron who neither understands the law nor moral theology. I’m done here. I pray you listen to the truth soon
English
@RebelWithHonor @theblessedsalt A reinforced mailbox is a boobytrap because it uses deception to inflict force you can’t legally use in person. By hiding an unyielding core in a yielding shell, you create an indiscriminate snare that values property over human life.
English
@GeococcyxCali @theblessedsalt You’re a moron, it’s a felony
English
@RebelWithHonor @theblessedsalt The reason the mailbox thing would be illegal is because you are setting up a situation where someone gets their arms broken for a misdemeanor which that law doesn't want to happen because you don't want a society where there's precedent to break people's arms for misdemeanors.
English
@gassinnewsom @FistingLater @Moldymaltquaff @theblessedsalt No, it’s done to protect someone’s shit.
English
@RebelWithHonor @FistingLater @Moldymaltquaff @theblessedsalt When I use the phrase "booby trap" it may not be legally considered such, but I do because it was made with the intent to cause harm or serious vehicle damage. And the law will still find you civilly liable whether or not it's technically a booby trap.
English
@TanyaDe2233 @Storm_Tigrex @theblessedsalt Uhuh. And guess what? No one here is arguing that this should be done in cruelty or for retribution
English
@RebelWithHonor @Storm_Tigrex @theblessedsalt And you were responding to someone who was talking about the original post.
English
@TanyaDe2233 @Storm_Tigrex @theblessedsalt …while directly responding to me. You see the problem, yes?
English
@RebelWithHonor @Storm_Tigrex @theblessedsalt I'm not assuming your reaction. I'm responding to the reactions that was the original post.
English
@RebelWithHonor @Moldymaltquaff @theblessedsalt Honestly, I hope you do this to your mailbox and when you kill someone and go to jail + lose all your assets, imagine me pointing and laughing at you
English
@TanyaDe2233 @Storm_Tigrex @theblessedsalt Sounds like you are assuming my reaction yet again. If someone gets injured, it’s only because Newton’s Third Law doesn’t miss. They had free will, they chose poorly. Actions have consequences, doesn’t mean someone is joyous when their defense measure worked
English
@RebelWithHonor @Storm_Tigrex @theblessedsalt I can assume your intention is to hide it when you celebrate after the fact someone gets injured because it was hidden.
English
@GeococcyxCali @theblessedsalt Again, it is not a booby trap. It is structural fortification. Please bring something new to the table or hush up. They had free will to not hit the mailbox. Newton’s third law dictates that the damage they receive is absolutely proportional to what they intended to cause.
English
@RebelWithHonor @theblessedsalt They didn't inflict the damage on themselves as if the fact it was concrete was open and obvious they would have not hit the mailbox meaning the concrete is functioning a boobytrap on the person meaning the person who set the trap is liable for what it causes.
English
@TanyaDe2233 @Storm_Tigrex @theblessedsalt Who says there is deliberate decision to hide the concrete? It is far more realistic structurally and weight wise to fill the mailbox with concrete than it is to encase it in a block of concrete. Just because the measure is not readily visible does not mean that it is wrong
English
The point is calling out the intent to harm for the sake of revenge, not simply just reinforcing your mailbox.
If you're building a reinforced mailbox to counteract Vandals and you make the conscious decision to hide the fact that it's reinforced; What would be the point of that?
English
@GeococcyxCali @theblessedsalt Whether or not it’s concealed does not change the fact they inflicted damage to themselves, and the damage they inflict is directly proportional to the damage they attempted to inflict on the mailbox. Perfect use of just war doctrine and dual effect doctrine, morally acceptable
English
@RebelWithHonor @theblessedsalt The concealed concrete is not allowed whereas the unconcealed is allowed is because you aren't permitted to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) to prevent your mailbox being smashed but if they know it's concrete you're not the one doing the GBH they inflicted it on themselves.
English
@gassinnewsom @FistingLater @Moldymaltquaff @theblessedsalt Protecting the structure of the mailbox by reinforcing it is not booby trapping it. Strapping a claymore to it would be booby trapping it. Those barriers are designed to be hit, but you’ll still total your car
English
@RebelWithHonor @FistingLater @Moldymaltquaff @theblessedsalt Those are visibly made of concrete. If a toddler runs in the road and I swerve into a mailbox thinking it's safe, I'd rather it not belong to a disgruntled twitter user who decided to booby trap it. Also those barriers are designed to be hit:
English
@TanyaDe2233 @Storm_Tigrex @theblessedsalt That’s on those people’s consciences. The act of reinforcing one’s property is not inherently wrong, if someone has bad intentions that’s on them. It’s very moral to protect your property in this way, even knowing that injury can occur to the vandal. It’s dual effect doctrine
English
@RebelWithHonor @Storm_Tigrex @theblessedsalt It's not making an assumption when you see a lot of the replies, celebrate the fact that someone would injure themselves trying to destroy it.
English
@GeococcyxCali @theblessedsalt lol fortifications don’t have to be advertised. I don’t have to advertise if my house has a security system. People can protect their property, the intent is not to injure the vandal. The intent is to protect your own property, a right protected by the govt and the Church
English
@RebelWithHonor @theblessedsalt Concealing a weapon is fine because a person is allowed to defend themselves from injury with deadly force so the threat is obvious to any person that attacking you may result in violence up to and including deadly force regardless of whether or not you seem capable of doing so
English
@gassinnewsom @ImagineDragin @Azalakhir1 @Moldymaltquaff @theblessedsalt Ok but that’s a different scenario. And if you are driving through the mailboxes to the point they are going through your windshield you are just as liable to be impaled by the wood or metal that is standard to secure them. And in that case the injuries are just as self inflicted
English
@RebelWithHonor @ImagineDragin @Azalakhir1 @Moldymaltquaff @theblessedsalt Well this one in particular may not be, but it still is an unnecessary hazard and could fly through the windshield and kill someone. Some people have buried I-beams though and gotten sued for killing people when they wrap their car around it.
English
@gassinnewsom @FistingLater @Azalakhir1 @Moldymaltquaff @theblessedsalt You know what isn’t made to break? The concrete blocks that line bridges on the highway. Does that mean you can sue the government because you hit one and totaled your car because you fell asleep at the wheel?
English
@FistingLater @Azalakhir1 @RebelWithHonor @Moldymaltquaff @theblessedsalt It depends. I've never seen someone crash into one of those so I don't know how well they collapse. But even timber utility poles are made to be hit and break away so people aren't injured.
English
@Teddy21btc @theblessedsalt You are absolutely correct
English
@theblessedsalt @RebelWithHonor If the ends do not justify the means, then government is evil when it forces honest, peaceful citizens to pay for government bureaucracy.
English