shirgall

That's how the director hints that they are Cylons.

A lot of this stuff can be traced back to the environmentally-motivated imposition of the 55mph speed limit, and the tying of federal highway funds to not only having the limit, but to assiduously enforcing it. The only good thing to come out of it is Smoky and the Bandit.

I think lying in an of itself is a tough row to hoe, but I think that lying with specific contexts can be proven to be not UPB. Lying about a surprise party is one thing. Lying to your wife about hooking up with hemophiliac heroin-addicted hookers every weekend is another.

This is why non-disclosure agreements exist. There's lots of templates out there, but the basic idea is that you and the other agree to not disclose clearly-identified secret information or penalties may happen. I am not a lawyer, but when making such agreements, try to find some way to have evidence that "consideration" went both ways in making such an agreement. This is why you make it a bilateral agreement: both parties agree to do something (or not do something). One-sided contracts are really hard to enforce.

I heard it differently, but I haven't read about this is a while. Earth is what is called a "third generation" planet. There have been a couple cycles of star formation and collapse before Sol and Earth solidified out of debris. This is why we have higher-order elements like Gold and Uranium available.

I think you are getting it. Immediacy is a necessary component, and it often speaks to avoidability. Let me give an example that actually happened: Husband says to his wife, "I've had it with you. I'm going out and when I come back if you are still here I'm going to kill you." He then leaves. In the past he has been a violent person and has beaten the wife, sometimes quite badly. She lays in wait and shoots him when he comes in the door. Is this justifiable? Maybe, in the moment. The immediacy is there. But she could have avoided it by leaving in the time after he left and before he came back. Let's apply this to the food situation we posited before: a fellow with a violent history tells a survivalist, "You have the only the food and water on the mountain. I'm going to go get my gun from my camp and come back here and shoot you." The survivalist shoots him right then, without the interlocutor leaving to get his gun. Is he justified? No. The danger was not immediate.

Lots of great philosophers have given reasons why the mind/body problem is a language problem and not a real problem. There is no material difference between the mind or body, the terms are abstractions for different aspects of the same organism.

Stef doesn't want brand recognition or fans, he wants philosophers and peaceful parents.

The term "immediate" is usually interpreted with three essential elements: ability, opportunity, and jeopardy. Does the actor have the ability to carry out the threat, is the threat likely to result in your death or grave bodily harm, and does it seem likely that the actor will carry out that threat. It's not about the result, because the result is your incapacitation or death. If you wait for the result you will not be able to change it. In the example of stealing food, if you were in the wilderness with no easy access to more food, and no way to travel the significant distance to get it, and therefore you are likely to starve to death without it, then stealing your food is an immediate threat. There are plenty of cases of imprisonment where lethal force is going to be hard to justify, for example, killing to escape jail where you were placed for committing a crime. While there are plenty of bad stories about jail, it doesn't seem likely to kill you, and therefore it seems hard to justify killing to get out of it. I don't think I've been attacking you in our conversation, only attempting to make the discussion clearer. I have a hard time constructing an argument to use lethal force in other circumstances, so I keep boiling back down to the original statement of the principle.

Your language is correct in usage, perhaps, but it is not objectively descriptive. A free agent decides what to do amongst possible alternatives that have costs and benefits. Anthropomorphizing conflicting minds within your own mind and having one force the other to its will may be poetic but devalues the term that should should be saved for describing an external actor using force to make you decide in a particular way.

A discussion of the relative uniqueness of Earth's environment and why we haven't found evidence of other technological civilizations with SETI.

Even when you "force yourself" to do something, you are doing it willingly. This is a problem with language, not free will.

It's a hedge against inflation primarily. People have many forms of savings, but cash is well-known as something that loses value, bank accounts are only as stable as the banks (and have pretty low returns), stocks can be volatile, commodities are really volatile (oil futures anyone?), so precious metals are just another store of value to try. Those that take home delivery can even touch and see it, which has a special value all its own in this increasingly virtual world of value.

They observe you, take pictures or video, and call down to a waiting car down below to come pull you over, but I suspect you are being rhetorical.

If they are stealing your food and you don't have any obvious method of getting more before you starve to death, it's immediate and otherwise unavoidable. You have not stated the purpose for which they have imprisoned you, 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 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.

My family, despite my explanations, wonders why I flip off the portable speed detecting signs (especially the ones that flash at you as if they were taking a picture). To their credit, the electronic signs around here generally have interesting information like comparing multiple routes to Seattle, or when there is a lane closure, or if special snow rules are in effect in the pass.

Did someone start a game of unclear antecedent bingo and not tell me again?

Depends on the area. Over the years I've been exposed to a number of tools, including authority, and I learned over time the authority was fallible, etc. etc. It's a journey of blind alleys and missteps, just like anyone else's is likely to be.

I never believed in anything. Instead I found things out. Some of those things were true. Some things were false. The struggle has always been correctly identifying which bucket to put them into.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/16/the-science-is-nearly-settled-a-higher-minimum-wage-costs-jobs/

You will find that lethal force in the defense of property will not be well-regarded by your fellow sentients. You will go through a lot of work to go back to the idea that theft of your property will be an immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger to your life... which is in my original formulation anyway, so it is not a useful distinction. It is not difficult that someone who imprisons you intends death or grave bodily harm for you, especially if they let you see their faces to identify them. This also goes back to my original formulation. I stick with my assertion that the only circumstance that justifies lethal force is the one I gave. (This is also not a formulation that is an excuse... it is a full-on justification. Excusable homicide is quite different from justifiable homicide.)

Not to be confused with "Gravity Lite" which is not very attractive. I'll see myself out.

The "otherwise unavoidable" requirement is not optional. There are plenty of ways to prevent cultures from supplanting your own. War is the conflict of state on state, and yes it does have some interesting rules and traditions, but that doesn't change the underlying universal that a state should not declare war on another unless it meets the same criteria that I outlined. And, frankly, the US is a weasel in this regard since no war has been declared since the one in Korea. I remember a significant number of armed engagements since then.

The term "microaggression" always makes me think that they are looking for a resolution that involves "microtransactions."

The circumstance the justifies lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent. No person, group, or state is justified in killing for any other reason.