Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA20854 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 5 Mar 2002 14:42:01 GMT X-Originating-IP: [126.96.36.199] From: "Grant Callaghan" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: RE: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 06:36:41 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <LAW2-F146fogkJXrRjb0000581b@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Mar 2002 14:36:42.0671 (UTC) FILETIME=[2B0D5BF0:01C1C453] Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
>Subject: RE: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence
>Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:31:19 -0000
> > Even the laws of most countries make allowances for people when they
> > defend
> > "my home, my family, my children, my beliefs, my property." If you shoot
> > stranger on the street, you go to jail for murder. If you shoot a
> > in your home or while they are attacking your children, or your person,
> > is called self defense and not prosecuted. There are no limits to what I
> > can do in defense of what is "mine.">>
> > On the contrary, what you describe is virtually uinique to the USA.
> > Ecuador and the UK (where I have some personal experience) would put you
> > behind bars for a very long time if you shoot somebody just because they
> > are intruders on your property. The situation in the USA is a
> > relic of the time when cowboys had to forcibly clear stray indians off
> > their ranches. The law had to be made so that they could do this
> > ending up in court every other day. It's a historical accident, not a
> > cultural universal.>
> Very true, although that case in the UK a year or two ago (The
>Martin case was it?) suggested that at least some proportion of the
>population felt that it should be legitimate (although not me- shooting an
>unarmed teenager in the back as they were trying to get out of the property
>is not self-defence to my mind).
> I think Grant's wider point about territoriality is basically right.
>I don't want to stir up the Aussies on the list, but there seems to be two
>diametrically opposite views about aboriginals in Oz, either the
>colonial one of disdain and control (evidenced by Prince Phillip's spear
>throwing comments the other day- oh we Brits are so proud...), or a
>guilt-ridden over-celebration and over-estimation of their culture and
>capabilities (a bit like those pro-native americans who refuse to accept
>that the Anasazi might have been ritualistic cannibals as the archeology
I always thought the old saying, and thus the sentiment, that "a man has a
right to defend his castle" was handed down to us by our English ancestors.
Of course, I am not enough of an Anglophile to be sure of that, the it's how
I remember it.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 05 2002 - 14:52:07 GMT