Peaceful Parent

Incorrect, I haven't put forth an argument; I simply questioned your reasoning. I see you edited the post in question, is it safe to assume you no longer wish to defend the reasoning of if I ask two different people the same question and receive two different answers, then that proves there's no objective answer for that question?

The same analogy could be applied to a math problem. If one person were to answer incorrectly (different answer) would that make the math problem subjective?

I appreciate this topic. It's rich for potential philosophical discussion. So very true. But I wonder just how intuitive is that truth?

They subjectively believe that the initiation of force is "better" than not initiating the use of force?

+1 rep for Kaki. Really strong and informative post. Your first point of advice "be fully present with my child in her pain" is of critical importance. It's essentially the A & L letters of your posted SALVE acronym (attention & listen). By simply committing to being present in your child's pain you can make so much ground in actually healing their emotional wounds.

My son is a non-verbal child with autism and he may very well remain non-verbal into adulthood. Surprisingly enough none of the comments in this thread stirred any negative feelings inside me. I understand the logic/reasoning. I certainly identify with him as a person though. It may be contradictory to do so if my wife and I have to claim ownership of him indefinitely, but I'm more than willing to admit that contradiction.

You've just summed up my mixed feelings on the down vote system. I don't respect it when it's being used as a stress reliever for someone on the opposing side of an argument.

I have more questions and comments for some of the points being made above, but I better address this direct question first. I can't read the section of my comment that you are quoting (it's not visible), so you'll have to clarify what it is you think I'm asking. Now to the "my thoughts" question, I need a more specific question.

Fair enough, at least for the "would" he or she (the social isolate) use that line of argument. As to the "could" part I imagine that you could have weighed in on that with a little more detail, had you felt so inclined. I understand and agree with your rejection of the bigotry criticism. While that term may apply to your stated position, it isn't inherently negative. It's not a moral problem. I still am a bit confused by your following statement: The above is an attempt at justification for any behavior that isn't immoral, correct? No matter how destructive? So a hermit could defend his solitary lifestyle with the above, or a raging homophobe could defend his or her fear with the above, or a person contemplating suicide could use the above to terminate his or her life. My point being, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the argument "if your advise is wrong then I have to pay the price" doesn't have any indication of whether someone should take the given advise. It's a neutral statement, it neither indicates if one should change their behavior or remain the same.

Oh no, neither. I'm not asking if any poster here is a hermit, please allow me to clear that up. I was asking a non-personal question, which was: Could a hermit/social isolate use your argument as their main rational for not forming personal relationships?

I'm sorry about your gun altercation. I've seen you reference that before; it must have been terrible. In respect to your explanation, are you asserting that if a person is capable of "suspending" their empathy that they were never in fact empathetic? Or are you asserting that a suspension of empathy is a caveat (best term I could think of) that would allow an empathetic person to initiate the use of force.

Can't initiate the use of force? I certainly hope so, but what is that based on? Is it a logical deduction, a scientific finding, a combination of the two, or neither?

I'm reading this as the crux of an argument a socially isolated person would/could make. If one would explain to a hermit that forming human relationships are enriching and rewarding, the hermit could then reply with the above reasoning minus the word bigotry. Is that correct?

Why unlikely? Would you also feel the same about an individual who enjoys and invests in fashion? Not that you're making any accusation against me but I'd like to include that I'm a big fan of men's wear.

How about plastic surgery regret? It may or may not be analogous but I'm interested in hearing your distinction between the two.