Define a BG...

Can o' Worms.

Well much like Love, BG probably means many things to many people. Since I'm bored, I'll give it a go for me.

One who breaks the law? The person threatening us? The Man?

Click to expand...

Well...breaking the law doesn't do it for. Heck...I break the law. I speed in my truck, change lanes without a turn signal. Two days ago, I forgot to put a little can of ground sage spice on the conveyor belt at the grocery store, and didn't notice it until I was putting the groceries in me car. I don't think of myself as a bad guy, I simply await for sweet Karma to balance me in these situations.

Your second one is pretty close. I would say anyone threating the safety, and to an extent, freedom, of myself or my wifes, kids family and friends. Safety would involve the threat of bodily harm. Freedom is important, but since I'm already letting the government tell me what I can and can't do on my property, and I still pay my taxes, freedom is hard to define. I know there is a line for freedom becoming an issue, I just haven't looked far enough inside myself to figure out where that line is.

As for The Man, why you gotta involve Tom Brady in this conversation?

greg

Ah, yes, the nebulous BG. We talk about him all the time, and yet there seems to be no standard definition of who he is. I guess the short story is he's the one we may find it necessary to shoot.

Now, if you're questioning where the line is between us and him...

This should be a fun thread.

Anyone I don't like.

BG=Any Person(s) that significantly infringes or threatens to infringe on your Rights.

People who feel no empathy for other human beings, see only their own immediate needs, and have no interest in the greater good. This allows them to commit horrendous crimes without remorse. This includes, by the way, not just street criminals, but politicians and other "respectable" citizens who destroy lives in their everyday "legal" actions. They are sociopaths: they cannot be rehabilitated.

The moral argument has always swung back and forth on the question of whether or not they are "sick." They may be sick, but they are also guilty.

The person threatening the life, liberty or property of you and your loved ones. It's just a useful short term to use in discussions. Of course you could say 'poor disadvantaged victim of the system' if you really want to.

I actually prefer the term used by John Farnam, Violent Crimnal Actor, or VCA. Succinct, to the point and far less nebulous. BG is a term of convenience requiring an explanation of circumstances to determine whether he or she needs force applied to stop them. VCA say it all in one term.

There are no bad guys. There are people who have done bad things.

Why do I say that? Because the nice family man/church leader type next door may be another Dennis Rader, and the ghetto-image bad-boy may be the the guy who runs into your burning house to save your kids. You just don't know.

That doesn't mean there aren't people who have a propensity, because of environment, conditioning, or preference, to do you and everyone else harm... those are just people who are likely to do bad things and are therefore dangerous. A rabid animal isn't a bad animal.

Someone willing to initiate force for personal gain.

Someone willing to initiate force for personal gain.

Click to expand...

Succinct. I like it.

the nice family man/church leader type next door may be another Dennis Rader, and the ghetto-image bad-boy may be the the guy who runs into your burning house to save your kids.

Click to expand...

There are still good guys and bad guys. That's just an example of how good guys and bad guys don't always fit the stereotypes. People who do bad things=bad guys.

I like the term "violent criminal actor." I hadn't heard that one before. I think that's a much better term for our purposes than "bad guy."

I like the term "violent criminal actor."

Click to expand...

One of the reasons I like it is that it limits the description in time to when the criminal action is taking place without making a moral judgement as to whether this is a "good guy" or a "bad guy". As long as I'm committing violent criminal actions, I'm a "Violent Criminal Actor" subject to having force used against me in order to stop the violent criminal act. Less confusing if you ask me.

Edit

Like Supreme Court Justice Stewart said in 1964 concerning "Obscene" material; I won't attempt to define it. "But I know it when I see it."

curmudgeon and anarchist wrote:

They are sociopaths: they cannot be rehabilitated.

Click to expand...

My psychitrist told me that once I learned to fake sincerity, the rest would be all downhill.

As sociopaths never possessed empathy, they cannot be re-habilitated. It is extremely difficult to even marginally habilitate them in that regard. However, much to their chagrin, Samenow & Yochelson (The Criminal Personality, Vols I - III) found that some (admittedly very few) sociopaths were able to manage to fake it for periods extending into decades.

I am close to agreeing with the phrase "violent criminal actor" (VCA). It seems to define those we are permitted to use lethal force upon when confronted with a self-defense situation.

But then not all BGs are involved in violent criminal acts which require self defense. And not all BGs are criminals. So I'm left looking at the actions they take.

If their action is intended to a) improve their situation at the expense of others, b) intentionally physically or psychologically harm others, or c) causes harm or destruction to the property of others, I see them as a BG.

In other words, I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it. That's good enough for the Supreme Court and good enough for me - regarding BGs.

stay safe.

skidmark

There are no bad guys. There are people who have done bad things.

Click to expand...

+1

Bad guy is a conversational construct that designates a wide range of people behaving in a wide range of ways. It is only useful in context. I try to avoid it because I'd rather not fall into the frame of mind of designating some people as less than others. Some people may be more dangerous or troubling or merely bothersome to me in certain situations than some others, but that assessment doesn't require classifying them as bads.

I do agree that the phenomenon of sociopathy is frightening and morally troubling. I wonder if some people were placed on earth in part to test the ability of others to retain their humanity in the face of overwhelming lack of humanity.

I think that all of us are POTENTIAL BG's, or BG's that just havent been caught yet. Maybe it is best that we arent so quick to draw the line between us and them.

Click to expand...

Well, I absolutely and utterly agree with you. Please read the rest of my post. I was referring specifically to the moral and even spiritual problem of understanding the phenomenon of sociopathy.

Like Supreme Court Justice Stewart said in 1964 concerning "Obscene" material; I won't attempt to define it. "But I know it when I see it."

Click to expand...

Ach! Kaba, you beat me to it.

Dont we fit these definitions when we are defending ourselves? Are we then BG's at times?

Click to expand...

Go back and take a look at the word "initiate". It's an objective term, not subjective.

A Libertarian is someone who has made a decision never to initiate force or pay someone else to do it for them.

The person threatening the life, liberty or property of you and your loved ones. It's just a useful short term to use in discussions.

Click to expand...

I like this definition. The only thing I'd change is "loved ones" to "any innocent individual".