Woman Stabbed Man With Kitchen Knife for Calling Her 'Ugly'

[Wokamuka]

Both of them were armed with a brain. His brain used his mouth and her brain used a kitchen tool. You don't need a gun to be armed. If you are able to use furniture, a utensil, or even your own human body as a weapon, you are armed at all times.

The lady was armed from the beginning. Heinlein's ideology, used sarcastically or not, is flawed and, sometimes, you can't make the blind see.

 

[Chase]

. . . and, sometimes, you can't make the blind see.

I see (so not blind after all) you're using your usual ad hominem parting thrust when jabs are parried with facts and smarmy illogic doesn't dazzle.

The opposite adage is more true: "There are none so insightful as those who will not flee."

 

[Wokamuka]

You, apparently, believe that respect is only given when "packing a piece" while I, obviously, believe that simply being a member of society affords a level of respect. Because I don't want to live by the sword and, therefore, die by the sword, it does not make me illogical. An excessive use of adjectives nor the appearance of being well-read does not make your belief any better than others.

Staying on topic, I don't believe that the woman (or any member of society), unarmed with any weapon, deserved to be verbally or physically assaulted. That's not a way to live nor for a society to maintain itself.

 

[Chase]

Ha ha ha, you say “well-read” as though it’s a bad thing. Which words describing qualities or stating limits or quantity were too many?

Another dodge behind semantics is your use of “respect,” but since you brought it up, you are dead wrong:

I do respect all people, and that respect continues even through heaps of verbal disrespect to me and mine. Armed or unarmed has nothing to do with it. I respect them until they become physical, and even then my reactions are only reasonable responses to their physical threat.

So you and I actually believe the same things. For instance, I agree neither of those people should have been verbally or physically assaulted.

I would love to live in the perfect utopia you envision. But the practical fact is it has never existed, it certainly doesn’t exist now, and no amount of legislation of morals and banning this and that will make it come to be.

All the banning from adults of anything has taught us is that it only puts it farther from the reach of the average, honest citizen . . . and makes it more useful for the criminal element.

That’s the basis of your faulty logic: not your dreams . . . but reality.

 

[Wokamuka]

Ha ha ha

Laughter is gold.

you say “well-read” as though it’s a bad thing.

That is incorrect. I remarked upon "the appearance of."

So you and I actually believe the same things.

I concur.

I would love to live in the perfect utopia you envision. But the practical fact is it has never existed, it certainly doesn’t exist now, and no amount of legislation of morals and banning this and that will make it come to be.

Please don't tell me that someone as intelligent as you envisions Heinlein's arguement as being reality.

All the banning from adults of anything has taught us is that it only puts it farther from the reach of the average, honest citizen . . . and makes it more useful for the criminal element.

Banning only brings about misunderstanding of the rules. You are, though, correct that the criminal element(s) take advantage upon.

That’s the basis of your faulty logic: not your dreams . . . but reality.

Semantics; shematics: I'm living in reality and reinforcing a message . . . are you?

Once again, your laughter is gold.