>>81321
You can't argue with assertions.
>Why should you be allowed to shoot someone because they took your garden hose?
Starts with an assertion as if responding to something not said and completely void of context. If you sneak into my house I have no way of knowing whether you're a petty thief or prepared to kill and maim.
> How is a human life worth more than your computer?
Value is subjective and relative. We gave that response and there was no answer as to what gives anything inherent value in of itself.
> It isn't directly keeping you alive, so it isn't self defense at that point, it's just you being entitled and greedy
Needs to be a lot more specific. He's trying to make it way too easy on himself to control a moral highground as if it has any other purpose than emotional rhetoric. WHAT is not keeping me alive? WHY do I get to keep only what keeps me alive? WHO gets the authority to determine that and on what grounds?
> I get why you'd need to shoot someone if they were trying to actively murder you, but not because they took your television set.
Again, how would we know? If I had perfect knowledge of someone's intent, then deciding on an equivalent response would be much easier. However, none of us read minds.
If you don't want to be treated as a shitposter don't throw around assertions and vitriolic tantrums at not being entertained. No "prove me wrong" threads either. You're really making it difficult to respond when you act as if you're in some sort of online anonymous intelligence contest where you award yourself points based on how right you feel and assuming everyone else is in on it.