ResidingOnEarth

That makes no sense to me. The term "immediate" means right now: in present time. I'm not aware of any other definition. I'm not sure what you are describing with "elements: ability, opportunity, and jeopardy". Are you talking about a threat? They're certainly nothing to do with the word "immediate". Also: why are you using the term "immediate" in your original statement if you're not talking about the result? As I pointed out: all actions are performed in the present (in the immediate), so the only rational interpretation of "immediate" I can think of in your original statement is you are referring to an immediate death (an immediate result). You could actually drop the word from your original statement and then it will cover more scenarios where it's justifiable to use lethal force. You've introduced a new word into this discussion which isn't in your original statement: "threat". I interpret the terms "immediate threat" and "immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death" as different. They are not interchangeable. There are many immediate threats that don't involve you being in danger of death. There are other differences between the terms too. I certainly would not claim that an immediate threat justifies lethal force. I don't think you would either. If I replace the word "threat" in your sentence (above) with your original term ("immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death") then you haven't done anything more than re-state my example scenario. You haven't made an argument to rebut my comment about the context of the term "immediate". See my EDIT at the bottom of my post. I think I understand your point now. You used the word "crime". I only ever use that word to describe an action performed which is against the law of a state. As such: I never bring the word into a moral argument, as it isn't useful at all. Smoking cannabis is a "crime" in many countries. Attacking someone, unprovoked is also a "crime" in many countries. All that word means to me is: some statists have written down a list of actions which should be punished if not performed and some other actions that should be punished if they are performed. I just checked a few dictionaries and my understanding of the word is in-line with them. So just knowing that someone has committed a "crime" isn't enough to decide whether it is justified to kill to escape or not. I expect there are a number of kind, empathetic, virtuous and morally principled "criminals" in the world. I don't think you've been attacking me in our convo either. We have both been challenging each other's statements Your original statement doesn't cover the winter food theft example I gave. I think you agreed that the winter food theft example is a scenario where it is justified to use lethal force. If you drop the term "immediate" from your original statement then it will cover the winter food theft example. Even without the word "immediate", I don't think your original statement covers my prison example, but I acknowledge that you haven't accepted that the prison example justifies use of lethal force. EDIT shirgall: I have thought about it some more and about what you've said. I think I understand your points about the use of the term "immediate". Take your sentence: (only slightly modified) A "circumstance [that] justifies lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death." Replace the term immediate with "non-immediate" and see what it looks like: A "circumstance [that] justifies lethal force is the non-immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death." If you are thinking in terms of actions, then use of the word "non-immediate" implies that you can use lethal force if you predict/imagine an otherwise unavoidable, danger of death at any point of time in the future. Obviously it is not acceptable to use lethal force against someone because you have imagined an otherwise unavoidable, danger of death in the future. If this was acceptable then whenever anyone imagined the possibility of someone else trying to kill them, they could then immediately initiate force against that person. So you have used the word "immediate" to make it clear that this is not acceptable. Is my understanding correct?

I replied in purple... It should now be obvious that stealing someone's food that they need to survive winter is not an "immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death". The resulting danger of death, of the theft is not immediate. This is unlike being stabbed, run-down by a car or shot where it is foreseeable, that you could immediately die. It should also be obvious that stealing someone's food that they need to survive winter is not "grave bodily harm". Stealing or even damaging someone's food supply is not stealing or damaging their body. Both your food and your body are your property, but they are not the same thing. Both your food and your body are required for you to live: but they are not the same thing. I maintain my claim that your statement does not cover all circumstances that justify the use of lethal force. You have not stated the purpose for which they have imprisoned you, I'm not sure what you mean by "purpose". I did state that the reason given for being imprisoned was "trading drugs". Some statists will claim trading drugs is "harming society" or "harming the state". Obviously trading drugs is not an immoral act and does not mean that a person should be caged for doing it. but in general imprisonment carries with it the threat of physical violence to keep you from leaving. If you fear the beating you will get if attempting to escape, and it's pretty likely such a beating is life-threatening, then it still falls to my original statement. If during your escape it's likely you will be beaten if caught and that beating is life-threatening then I agree. That cleanly falls within your original statement. It is however, possible to restrain someone without giving them a life-threatening beating. It's my understanding that in prisons in England you wouldn't be beaten if you attempted to escape. I think it's far more likely that you would be restrained using minimal force and manoeuvres which are designed not to cause serious harm or death. Once restrained I think it's unlikely, in England, that you would be beaten by the prison guards. What I have just pointed out (restrained without a beating) does not fall within your original statement. If they lock you in a cage and you are solely reliant on them for sustenance, that is also life-threatening. The threat is there that they can starve you or dehydrate you at a whim. Again: I can imagine scenarios like the one you have described. Those scenarios would fall within your original statement. I can imagine other scenarios (like the English prison I described above), where it would be highly irrational to assume they will starve you or dehydrate you. I've not seen any evidence that, this occurs in English prisons. I would not assume I would be starved or dehydrated if I was imprisoned in England. So again: this does not fall within your original statement. At this point, I'd like to point out that I am willing to accept your original statement if you make a good case for it. As it stands I think I have clearly outlined problems with your statement, so I do not accept it, as-is. I want to ensure that I only accept and internalize moral principles that are logically consistent and universally applicable. I think an empathetic person who has internalized irrational or incorrect principles is made weak and vulnerable to the manipulations of sociopaths. This is why I am making the effort to respond to your statement: * If I am wrong. I want to be corrected. That will make me stronger. * If I am right. I want to voice my corrections. That will make you stronger.

Amazing There is so much fail in this video. Like... how does it follow that a guy telling "weird insulting jokes" among friends mean they will rape someone? The very first serious tone statement is: The very last serious tone statement is this: So they are directly saying that the "greatest danger of all" is being a girl exposed to boys. It wasn't "boys that rape", "boys that harass" or "boys that assault". It wasn't "people that rape", "people that harass" or "people that assault". It's just: boys. "Boys" are the thing that's bad. Rape, harassment and assault are just things that boys do.

I replied in purple.

I would agree with the statement: "A circumstance that justifies lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent.", but not with your statement. I can think of 2 other circumstances off the top of my head which justify the use of lethal force: 1. I think attempts to damage or steal your property that you depend upon to live gives justification for use of lethal force to prevent that. I'm referring to property beyond your own body. I can think of plenty of scenarios where having my property taken from me could result in my death. Obviously if someone steals my tamagotchi that doesn't give me justification for the use of lethal force to prevent the theft. 2. If someone or some group imprisons you in their home, but provides you with all the things you need to stay alive and the only way of escaping is by attacking them so aggressively that they may die, then your attacks are justified.

Yes! This ^ One of the things I love most about FDR is how it has provided me with a logical and consistent set of ethics which allow my natural empathy to work in my favour without causing hurt to others. The set of ethics; or rather, "ideas" that I was imbued with as a child did not serve me or others well at all. Those ideas took my powerful and guiding desire to do what's right and turned it into a continual self-attack and self-deletion mechanism. I was left feeling unsure and powerless and always deferring judgement of right and wrong to authority. This microaggression idea sounds like just another way of making empathetic people confused and powerless. If you have a strong desire to be good and do what's right, but you have no rational way of deciding for yourself, what it is right and what is wrong, then you cannot boldly express yourself and take action to further your own interests as everytime you try, those who want to control you will claim that you are doing wrong. You will have no way of disputing their claim. At this point, many people will try not to rock the boat and they will defer to authority for answers as to what is right and what is wrong. This is wonderful for the sociopathic controllers, because they can now make it clear to the empathetic people what they should and should not do. Obviously: this set of "shoulds" and "should nots" are things which either help the sociopathic controller or at least: don't harm them and their personal agenda.

dsayers: very interesting post. It has left me thinking about lots of things. Particularly: I'm thinking about how this prior state of yours where you were an "echo of [your] parents", affects your responsibility, and moral culpability for your prior actions. I'm trying to think about this from the perspective of my own life. I too was abused. I have -- throughout my teenage and adult life -- had a very strong sense of not being me. I have slowly found ways of being and feeling more like me and less like the jagged shadow of my harsh parents. Some questions I am asking myself: * Is a child raised under an abusive parent more likely to not be themselves than if they are raised under a non-abusive parent? So: does a respectful, empathetic, consistent and peaceful parenting approach allow a child to be who they really are? * How do you separate who you are from how you behave? Much of the behaviour of an abused child is surely performed to keep the child as safe as possible from the abuser. Because the goal of the behaviour is to keep the child safe, does that mean the behaviour is false? If a peaceful parent loves the outdoors and often takes their child out with them into the mountains for hiking, then that child will learn lots of behaviours that serve the child well when hiking. Are those behaviours false because they are learned as a result of the peaceful parents desire to go hiking? I have no conclusions yet. I'm actually feeling a little bit confused. Loved your post! Your child is so lucky to have you.

RoseCodex: I thought all state schools were like that. Were the Korean schools you taught in more into their slave-mindset programs that most?

If people really want and prioritize safety for themselves and their family and friends then they will purchase the safest vehicle (that also fits their other criteria). If all vehicles are very unsafe, some will still be safer than others. People prioritizing safety will pick the safest option. Car manufacturers -- driven largely by profit and therefore demand -- will look for ways to provide better cars. "Better", means that it satisfies market demand better than their previous cars and better than the competition. There are plenty of ways businesses can ascertain what the market demand is (eg surveys and analysis of sales trends). So: car manufacturers will discover there is a demand for safer cars and then invest in research and development of safer cars. People will buy those safer cars. Other manufacturers will follow suit. No government needed. If people don't want safer vehicles and perhaps heavily prioritize low price or high performance over safety, then manufacturers will not make safer vehicles. If the government then forces manufacturers to build safer vehicles then they are forcing them to produce vehicles that people do not want. No government wanted. I ride a motorcycle. I have no airbags, no crumple zone, no padded dash, no steel roll cage, no ABS, no traction control and no seatbelts. If I have a high speed collision it's not going to be pretty. This is my choice though. I have chosen performance, practicality (road congestion doesn't really affect me), fun and low running costs over the safety of a car. I'm not the only one who has made this set of choices. In fact there are lots of us. As such manufacturers produce 2 wheeled machines that satisfy our demand. My demands and the demands of those that want safety are not mutually exclusive. Vehicle manufacturers cater for both demands. This is my understanding of how the market works... and it really does... work. No need for violence to augment it.

Welcome "Daivd"

This may be the last post of yours that I respond to, as I have a suspicion you are trolling. I have replied in purple.

You're probably right, but I like my idea better! The idea of them feeling even a tiny fraction of the hurt that they cause others.

I noticed he looked and sounded tired during his recent oval-office speech. I have noticed a lot of politicians seen to age rapidly when they become prime-minster or president. I'd like to think that when they get into power, whatever semblance of good conscience and empathy they have turns against them: eats them alive, stops them sleeping and weighs them down.

Fact is, you are not making your case in a logical and philosophical way. Here's a question: how do you factor, coal, nuclear, solar, tidal, geothermal, wind and hyrdroelectric energy sources into this idea of yours? In the event of "peak oil" (a supply change), the demand for energy will not change. It seems that you think that in the event of "peak oil", people wont switch over to getting their energy from other sources.

Matt D: I just wanted to mention that it is obvious to me that you are intelligent, concerned with doing the right thing and trying to make the best of a bad situation. I just disagree with your approach (for the reasons I have given)

I have replied inside the quote below in bold purple, because it was easier for me (the editor on this forum is awkward as hell to use!).

I didn't say gun restrictions are insane. I said this: My point was that it's insane to decide that gun-owners should be aggressed against because "guns allow criminals to much more effectively murder their victims". That makes no sense at all. I probably should've said "irrational" instead of "insane". I actually agree with some gun restrictions. For instance: a parent should restrict their very young child/baby from having any access to a gun. A carer who is responsible for a severely mentally disabled person shouldn't leave any of their guns around that disabled person. If I was a gun store owner I would impose restrictions on some customers. I would refuse to sell guns/ammo etc to people who are known to be thieves and violent aggressors. I didn't say they were the same. I said that it's my understanding that the UK and USA government fit the definition of being terrorist organisations. Also: if democracy is better than sharia law; does that mean that it is morally ok for a democratic government to initiate force against people in a foreign land where many people in that land claim to be practising sharia law, so that a democratic system can be imposed upon them? I think that would be a very hard case to make.

I've been trying to use this better definition of terrorism as a wedge into the irrational minds of statists. If they accept this definition, then you can bring up the Iraq war and other recent wars started by various states. If one of the primary goals of the Iraq war was to use violence and intimidation against people to replace a dictatorship with democracy (a political goal) then surely the UK gov and the USA gov are both terrorist organisations. George Bush Junior said democracy was there goal: source: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/NEWS-ANALYSIS-Record-shows-Bush-shifting-on-2690938.php The shock and awe campaign in the initial invasion of IRAQ was a violent act with the deliberate goal of extreme intimidation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Iraq_War Many thousands of civilians were killed during the initial invasion. See the first column of the chart titled "Deaths caused per month by US-led forces and others" on this BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4696875.stm Me too (based on what I know so far).

I know that's a popular definition, but it's not a very useful one as it renders the word "terrorism" almost meaningless as anyone can claim officialdom or authority and then claim that a particular use of "violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" is terrorism. I could -- for-instance -- claim that in my private ResidingOnEarth club, that a use of violence in this way is not officially condoned. This definition allows for anyone claiming officialdom to almost arbitrarily declare someone a terrorist and no dispute can be made. This definition from WordNet 3.0 by Princeton University seems more sensible to me and on the rare occasion where I use the word "terrorism", this is what I mean: The only word I'd change in this definition is "civilians". I'd change it to "people". I don't see why the distinction "civilians" is needed. Why couldn't you commit terrorism against someone in the military, the police or against someone living in a free-society where there are no "civilians"?

In this world, the only reason I can think of to raise the points you did is for moral consideration. What's the point in discussing this fantasy, alternative world? Does it help us solve problems in this world? I don't see any use in imagining a world where guns are not a physical possibility or where you can magically delete all guns from existence. It's true that guns allow murderers to much more effectively murder their victims than if -- for instance -- all they had was blades. That's not an argument though. I don't think it's even a controversial position to hold or widely disputed. For that matter: it's not really even a "position". It's just a fact. These are also facts: The existence of guns allow for good people to defend themselves from bad people. The existence of guns allow for people to accidentally shoot themselves. The existence of guns allow for people to go to shooting ranges and practise shooting. The existence of guns allow for people to hunt animals. These are all just true statements. If there really are liberals out there that think that saying "guns allow criminals to much more effectively murder their victims" somehow gives them a moral right to use violence (in particular: guns) to arbitrarily take away guns from people who have them and stop other people from using them or trading them, then... well... then they're insane!

Let's just say there would be plenty of entertainment for you if you came to England. It's pretty rare over here to find someone who doesn't support the use of deadly force to disarm and prohibit trading of firearms. I'd like to think the recent tragedy in Paris would make many British people reconsider their stance, but it's doubtful. I've read-up on what I'm aloud to use to defend myself here: it's pretty horrifying. There's not much you can legally do. We are very much encouraged here to "call for help", eg carry a loud siren, scream/shout, ring 999 (our emergency number), honk your horn, trigger a silent attack alarm.

brucethecollie: Your post made me think of how important it is to raise children in a rational and peaceful way. Your story highlighted how important intuition can be and in your case how it potentially saved your life. If that intuition is ultimately built from and rooted in your prior knowledge, understanding and conclusions about the world, then having correct knowledge, an accurate understanding and rational conclusions about the world are more likely to yield intuition that is correct and therefore useful. Even life saving. I've been thinking quite a bit about what dsayers said in another thread about how teaching a child to correctly reason using sound logical principles and reliable evidence is essential to the survival of that child. If people do have a positive moral obligation to provide a child with the things they need to survive in the world after they have left home, then it follows, that not providing a child with the ability to correctly reason (when you know how to) is immoral. Pelafina: Implicit in your question "How do you know that intuition is better or worse than logic as a tool to get one to the truth?" is the assumption that intuition can not be a logical process. Are you sure that intuition cannot be logical? I'm not sure. I know that a person can consciously reason in a logical manor. I know that a computer can be programmed to be logical and will then faithfully execute that logical program on a given input, producing a corresponding, logically derived output. I consider intuition to be a subconscious feature of the mind. One definition of 'intuition' is: "Immediate cognition without the use of conscious rational processes." So if we were to use that definition of 'intuition', it is at-least possible, that intuition could be a subconscious rational and logical process. If true, I would expect the degree to which intuition is a logical process to vary between people depending largely on how logical they are consciously. This is something that could be easily tested for.

Victor-Storm: The moral argument for not banning guns is enough for me. For those who don't care about the moral argument and try to claim there is a measurable practical benefit when you ban guns and therefore we should ban guns, I think these are two very good counter-arguments: Victor-Storm: The purely quantitative studies of murders in environments with banned guns vs environments with legal guns do not account for all the positive benefits guns bring. It's like judging whether cars should be banned or not purely by examining noise pollution, emissions and accidental road deaths while ignoring all the positive benefits of cars.

Hey utopian Whatever happened in your dream that made you feel shame, didn't actually happen. If you did something bad to someone else in your dream, it doesn't mean you will do that same thing while awake. If something bad was done to you in your dream it doesn't mean it will happen to you while awake. I have experienced very dark thoughts many times in my life. I have followed those thoughts. I've focused on them and experienced them as if they were real. They felt real, but they were not real. Something that helps me when my thoughts go very dark is to remind myself of this one simple thing: "You can always deal with the present moment." It's true. If you have bad memories from your past and your view of the future is currently very sad and dark, try to come back to right now. Focus your attention on your breathing. Focus on the space you are in. Listen for sounds in your environment. Feel if you're hungry. Feel if you're a comfortably temperature. Assess whether there are any actual threats around you (there probably aren't). My parents also taught me not to reproduce. My dad would explicitly tell me "never have children". He'd often say this calmly after he had previously been screaming abuse at me. He'd talk about how shit his life was because of me and my siblings and how good his life would be if he didn't have us.

Beautifully put!