Kasimir

@davepl1968 They are not innocent by the mere fact of clipping it with their car. People don't deserve for others to sacrifice for their ability to drive safer at any speed. The motorist that wants to drive safer and faster should pay tolls to invest in safety equipment on the road.

@KasimirFreeman Do I care what happens when someone tries to hit it with a bat? Not really. Do I care what happens if an innocent person clips it with their car at 50mph? Yeah.

Reject anyone that calls this "immoral" or a "trap". A trap must convert safe behavior into unsafe one using force or deception. The stone mailbox is harmful only against inherently unsafe behavior. Self-harm by aggressors is a moral blessing for society.

@UFObuds @prganthony I reject your frame: the aggressor is purely self-harming. You in fact do not need to sacrifice your life for aggressors, not even one bit.

@KasimirFreeman @prganthony do you think harming a mailbox has the same moral weight as harming a person

Physics is key here because the defender in this case applies zero force to the aggressor. Perston's argument demands sacrifice by the defender, which would be actually legally and morally disproportional. Don't aggress: simple as.

@KasimirFreeman @prganthony Physics isn't legal or moral proportionality, you used McDonald's napkin.

@SummersJohns69 Punching is never safe. That's the beauty of the argument! You just provided one plausible scenario of why that can be true. I'll give you another: it's not safe to punch a punching bag at the gym. One accepts the risk of wear or injury to grow stronger.

@KasimirFreeman How’s this for a deception - a small armed woman. It feels very safe to punch her in a face but then she pulls out a gun and shoots you. Clear deception, right?

@garbageland69 True, it just stands there, like an object filled with concrete, A fact of reality.

@KasimirFreeman Yeah that argument definitely doesn't fly.

@Hyza87 @Seano299 Humans ought value themselves and their owned resources way higher than a billion broken criminal wrists. "You shouldn't do that..." followed by "I told you so" is as uplifting as a dying parasite.

@KasimirFreeman @Seano299 Hey dipshit, where is the child in the picture. Your stuff is not worth a broken wrist. Even if it's a robber's.

@wower112 Historically all societies that became high-trust (Singapore, Sweden, etc.) had consistent punishments against aggressors, and as soon as they converted to your attitude, they started losing their high-trust status.

@KasimirFreeman I dont think this type of anti-social behaviour is a sign of ”greatness”. It’s more of a sign of a low-trust society

@CletusCornpone Too much of criminal law is written by criminals.

@KasimirFreeman That’s cool. Luckily criminal law takes a more sane viewpoint

@DrHelios42 Follow the actual logic: poison turns a safe action, eating food, to an unsafe one, thus constitute a possibly illicit trap. The poison can damage an innocent irrespective of the force applied. Non-analogous to a concrete mailbox.

@KasimirFreeman Does this line of thinking permit you to put lethal dosage of poison in your food at work, to self-harm the aggressive lunch stealer? So where is the limit?

@orbuz2522 Driving is inherently unsafe. It's best the concrete stops the uncontrolled car rather than anything else in a residential area. Drive slow to minimize risk and keep speed for highways.

@KasimirFreeman >guy drives >Has a heart attack >Wooden mailbox: nothing happens guy gets saved >Concrete mailbox: guy fucking dies on the spot

@Seano299 I fantasize about living in a safe community where everyone, including women and children, are safe from tyrants and aggressors, regardless of age or socioeconomic status. If this "assaults" anyone, they should not exist.

@KasimirFreeman This is a form of premeditated assault. Wanting to inflict physical injury on another person over minor theft is psychopathic. This is more evidence that to be Right-Wing is to lack virtue as a human being. Do better.

@quasistable It's best not to consider it a punishment at all: the object is not applying any force by itself, it is merely redirecting the force of the aggressor. It's not about severity, but cause and effect.

Why is everyone engaging with this saying shit like “but it’ll break the teenager’s arms!” Has no one here hit something hard with a baseball bat? Hitting an immovable object with a baseball bat is likely to, in order: 1) break the bat, if it’s wooden 2) sting your palms painfully 3) MAYBE sprain your wrist 4) VERY unlikely, break your wrist, if it’s a very hard swing and you’re using an aluminum bat, and you get very unlucky Implying that broken arms is the expected outcome here is just delusional, and makes it seem way less reasonable. In fact, the expected outcome is to break the teenagers bat and give his hands a painful sting/bruise: a much more reasonable punishment.

@ThoughtsAbStuff A pit trap turns a safe action (walking on land) into an unsafe one (falling into a pit), and applies a higher force than what is applied to it by whoever is caught. It may be licit or illicit. It's non-analogous to the mailbox scenario.

@KasimirFreeman A pit trap to catch burglars is still a trap What we should be saying is that trapping and hurting villains is good, actually

@garbageland69 Driving is inherently unsafe, particularly in an area with mailboxes and pedestrians.

@KasimirFreeman The issue comes in the fact that there is not only against "unsafe behavior" such as swerving to avoid hitting something much worse, or a car control failure. Niche scenarios, but they make it a little less cut and dry

@bob42491170 Yes. The Father should distribute that warning early on: equal and opposite reaction can hurt you, and you are most vulnerable when attacking. Having failed that verbal lesson, a broken arm will save a life.

@KasimirFreeman We're saying it's a moral good to break 15 year old teens arms? Yeah it's stupid to go do, but all of us do stupid stuff as a teen. At least put a warning about a fortified mailbox so it's then a known mistake by them Itd be a little different if there were grown men doing this

@wower112 Little tyrants should learn a lesson in physics: preferably from their father rather than from a broken arm. America is greater than your country precisely because it's generally more honest on cause and effect. We escaped from greater slavery towards self-ownership.

@KasimirFreeman American try not to fantasize about causing crippling injuries to little boys for making pranks (impossible). ”Muh propooorty”

@yipopov Only highways should prioritize the motorists. Residential roads should prioritize pedestrians and contain stone bollards and other measures to incentivize slowing down.

@KasimirFreeman What if I think all roadside installations should be frangible, but people who intentionally smash them need to be rounded up and beaten with sticks?

@prganthony @TradMaldOwl Good thing this is Non-Analogous. Explosives exceed Newton's Third Law and may also harm complete bystanders. They turn a safe action (standing within the AoE) into an unsafe one, thus being a trap and illicit in this hypothetical. "Tannerite Boris" is a different story.

@TradMaldOwl @KasimirFreeman If the guy rigged the mailbox to explode upon a forceful impact, and it kills the teenager with a bat and whoever else was the car, would that be ok?

@SC0NSTI0 By your definition everything is a trap. Every object is governed by Newton's Third Law and thus can, when certainly arranged, provide the equal and opposite reaction.

@KasimirFreeman It’s a trap but anyone who falls for it deserves the punishment

@BaneTigger Good question: mere deception is not enough. Deception about the safety of an action is what matters. Hitting, applying raw force, is never a safe action due to Newton's third law. Believing one is safe when attacking is a severe form of delusion: the exact opposite is true.

@KasimirFreeman This uses deception though and thus should be a trap? The outer casing on it hides the concrete inside. The entire thing could be a concrete block and achieve the same effect without deceiving the person about the nature of the box for example.