Libertyblues Posted December 20, 2015 Posted December 20, 2015 I can't find anything with those search terms, neither in the forum nor in the podcast section..
ResidingOnEarth Posted December 20, 2015 Posted December 20, 2015 I had a conversation with shirgall about when it is justified to kill in self-defence. This was the thread: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45844-donald-trump-on-terrorists-take-out-their-families/ He made the following claim: 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. I raised some objections to it and in doing so realised that some of my objections were not valid on account of me not having a clear idea of what an immediate threat is. Specifically, how important "opportunity" is when it comes to a threat. IE does the person attacking you have the opportunity to harm you or kill you. There may be some things said in our conversation which overlap with your interest in pre-emptive attacks.
dsayers Posted December 20, 2015 Posted December 20, 2015 Usually "preemptive attack" is a phrase used in the context of nations. Since nations do not exist, the various problems with the phrase are quickly visible. So could you define your terms and/or specify what it is you're looking to talk about?
shirgall Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 Usually "preemptive attack" is a phrase used in the context of nations. Since nations do not exist, the various problems with the phrase are quickly visible. So could you define your terms and/or specify what it is you're looking to talk about? Pre-emptive attacks are sometimes found in self-defense cases, and the canonical example is someone who accurately predicts a punch is about to be thrown, or a gun being drawn, by picking up on movements of the body that the untrained or unpracticed would not see.
dsayers Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 If that is the case, then I submit that the term preemptive is misleading. The reaction to a credible threat comes after that threat, not before.
shirgall Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 If that is the case, then I submit that the term preemptive is misleading. The reaction to a credible threat comes after that threat, not before. Indeed, the term that used to be applied to the self-defense cases was "precognition" but that has a negative connotation that does not apply, so it was changed to "pre-emptive" which I don't think is much better.
shirgall Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 A good book to read on the subject pre-emption of real attacks is Left of Bang. http://www.amazon.com/Left-Bang-Marine-Combat-Program-ebook/dp/B00L45NXF4
Libertyblues Posted December 22, 2015 Author Posted December 22, 2015 Usually "preemptive attack" is a phrase used in the context of nations. Since nations do not exist, the various problems with the phrase are quickly visible. So could you define your terms and/or specify what it is you're looking to talk about? For example Israel's covert attacks on Iranian scientists.. Or a security firm taking out people planning an attack but not showing when or if they would execute it.
dsayers Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 For example Israel's covert attacks on Iranian scientists.. "Isreal" is a country, which is a concept. "Attack" is a behavior. Concepts cannot engage in behaviors. I don't know what you're looking for. If it's the truth, you have to start by defining your terms and approaching the topic rationally.
Libertyblues Posted December 22, 2015 Author Posted December 22, 2015 "Isreal" is a country, which is a concept. "Attack" is a behavior. Concepts cannot engage in behaviors. I don't know what you're looking for. If it's the truth, you have to start by defining your terms and approaching the topic rationally. that's what I'm trying..thanks for helping me get there! What about the second part of my post?
Libertyblues Posted December 22, 2015 Author Posted December 22, 2015 "Isreal" is a country, which is a concept. "Attack" is a behavior. Concepts cannot engage in behaviors. I don't know what you're looking for. If it's the truth, you have to start by defining your terms and approaching the topic rationally. that's what I'm trying..thanks for helping me get there! What about the second part of my post?
dsayers Posted December 23, 2015 Posted December 23, 2015 that's what I'm trying..thanks for helping me get there! You're welcome. Can you show your gratitude by defining your terms? I'm not trying to be obtuse here. I'm trying to demonstrate how we can apply rational thought in such a way as to arrive at the answer you seek. What about the second part of my post? Same thing. "Security firm" is a concept. "taking out" is vaguely a behavior. So I don't know what you're talking about.
Libertyblues Posted December 23, 2015 Author Posted December 23, 2015 Ok now I think I got where you're coming from, philosophy 101. A security firm A, contracted by 80% of an urban area A, doesn't trust the science program of firm B in urban area B, because of intell. Firm A can tell where firm B is trying to mine and refining uranium but can't tell where the missiles would be assembled and launched. Urban area A is extremely scared of near insane people in urban area B. Firm A warns the owner of the mine to not sell to Firm B but the owner continues relations with Firm B. After multiple warnings Firm A bombs the mines.
ResidingOnEarth Posted December 23, 2015 Posted December 23, 2015 Same thing. "Security firm" is a concept. "taking out" is vaguely a behavior. So I don't know what you're talking about. I interpreted "security firm" as shorthand for "a group of people working for a security firm". A "security firm" being an organisation that provides physical security services to others. I think it's acceptable to use the word as shorthand in that way. When someone asks me "who made your computer?" I might reply "IBM". I'm using "IBM" as shorthand for "the people who work as part of the IBM organisation." I don't think it's misleading, ambiguous or confusing to say "security firm" or "IBM" in those respective contexts. I do however fully agree that it is not possible for "Israel" to attack someone or some group of people. The reason being: there is no clear way of determining who is a member of the "Israel" organisation. Worse than that: when people say "America attacked", "Israel attacked", "America has decided" or "Israel has decided" they are usually attempting to assign complicity to all citizens of those respective governments. I have not given consent or will-full support to the people working in the UK government organisation who have been attacking people in the middle east. Unfortunately people (especially in people in mainstream media) have been incorrectly claiming or implying that I have by saying phrases like "the United Kingdom has agreed to assist America in the fight against..." blah. I think it is better to say "The Israel government organisation attacked". That removes the confusing, inconsistent and ambiguous concept of the nation from the phrase. Using the term "organisation" also does not imply that all people on the land referred to as "Israel" are somehow involved/morally-complicit. It's only people claiming to be part of the Israel organisation that are involved and to greater and lesser to degrees, morally-complicit. Referring to "Israel" as an organisation also makes it obvious that Israel, Pepsi, IBM and Oxfam are all just orgs, but 1 of those orgs is different from the others in that it uses extreme violence to achieve its organisational goals. "Taking out" someone is a euphemism for killing someone. It's an unnecessary avoidance of using the term "killing", but I don't think it's ambiguous.
dsayers Posted December 23, 2015 Posted December 23, 2015 ResidingOnEarth, why'd you have to go and be all convincing? Can't you see I'm trying to teach the man HOW to fish? Not that it matters, but I'm a private investigator. I work for a security firm. So I'm well-versed in what that looks like in the real world, as well as the distinction between the various deployments of force. In the consideration of morality, I will never accept any shorthand as the truth is concise already and imprecision historically has lead to the murder of millions of human beings. If a person is able to accept the difference between an entity and a person, and what a behavior is, the answer to questions such as these become exceedingly clear.
ResidingOnEarth Posted December 23, 2015 Posted December 23, 2015 In the consideration of morality, I will never accept any shorthand as the truth is concise already and imprecision historically has lead to the murder of millions of human beings. If a person is able to accept the difference between an entity and a person, and what a behavior is, the answer to questions such as these become exceedingly clear. Yeah. I think the fact that "the truth is concise already" (IE the word "killing"), suggests that all avoidance of using that word during a philosophical discussion are likely to be knowing or unknowing attempts at manipulation/sophistry. At best; the usage of terms like "taking out" add a layer obfuscation. I understand the words "theft" and "tax" to essentially, be equivalent in meaning. It's amazing how differently though, those words are interpreted by, what seems to be, the majority of people. So I agree. Better to stick with the proper term "killing" to keep the conversation philosophical and avoid unnecessary obfuscation. Side note: I think you're a good teacher; one of my favourite on this forum! I am enjoying learning from you.
Libertus Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 Here's my rule of thumb, I don't remember where I picked it up, but the conversation usually ends when I quote this: OIC = opportunity, intent, capability Those are the elements of a credible threat that warrants a preemptive attack. They make it self-defense, even if you have to strike first. I have yet to encounter an example of a situation that can't be judged by these three factors, let alone a better description of my own thought process, how I determine whether I would strike first. I can elaborate, if you want, but I find it self-explanatory, so let it simmer for a while...
Libertyblues Posted December 28, 2015 Author Posted December 28, 2015 Here's my rule of thumb, I don't remember where I picked it up, but the conversation usually ends when I quote this: OIC = opportunity, intent, capability Those are the elements of a credible threat that warrants a preemptive attack. They make it self-defense, even if you have to strike first. I have yet to encounter an example of a situation that can't be judged by these three factors, let alone a better description of my own thought process, how I determine whether I would strike first. I can elaborate, if you want, but I find it self-explanatory, so let it simmer for a while... I'd say the problem here is the subjectivity of "intend". In my example above the preemptive attack would be self defense..
Libertus Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 Not sure what you mean by "subjective nature". Intent isn't a more or less subjective factor than any other of the three. The firm needs to have actual evidence, at least a plausible reason to believe there is intent. Let's say, the company has issued a press release saying, they're going to "bomb these bastards". Or maybe, the CEO of the firm was caught sending an email expressing intent to murder. To address your scenario, the company can demonstrate no evidence of intent, so therefore they can't claim their own attack to be in self-defense. This is not an arbitrary condition I just made up, it's a standard used in courts and procedure around the world: "I have reason to believe and do believe", not just the latter. 1
Libertyblues Posted December 29, 2015 Author Posted December 29, 2015 Not sure what you mean by "subjective nature". Intent isn't a more or less subjective factor than any other of the three. The firm needs to have actual evidence, at least a plausible reason to believe there is intent. Let's say, the company has issued a press release saying, they're going to "bomb these bastards". Or maybe, the CEO of the firm was caught sending an email expressing intent to murder. To address your scenario, the company can demonstrate no evidence of intent, so therefore they can't claim their own attack to be in self-defense. This is not an arbitrary condition I just made up, it's a standard used in courts and procedure around the world: "I have reason to believe and do believe", not just the latter. In my example the people of A are extremely scared for a reason, are they not? And I said there was intelligence of a missile project. I see a problem with intend also because it's not clear whether it's only (Isreal) bashing or if someone really would sacrifice casualties of a second strike..
Libertus Posted December 30, 2015 Posted December 30, 2015 > In my example the people of A are extremely scared for a reason, are they not? There's a reason why "being scared" is not among the three elements I listed. Evidence for intent is usually something that is *outside* someone's imagination. > there was intelligence of a missile project. That's capability, i.e. one of the other two. Being armed is not evidence for bad intent. What evidence is there for intent? > I see a problem with intend also because it's not clear Well then maybe you can come up with a clearer example or a better standard than the one I layed out. What's yours? How do you determine if it's OK for you to strike someone?
Libertyblues Posted December 31, 2015 Author Posted December 31, 2015 Well then maybe you can come up with a clearer example or a better standard than the one I layed out. What's yours? How do you determine if it's OK for you to strike someone? Terrorists hide their intend, so for me the criteria of intend is difficult to properly establish. If they say they are mining uranium only to use it as an energy source it's an issue of trust.. In my example they don't trust area B and they warned them several times and their fear is real. Isn't there some obligation from the people in area B to gain their trust and back off the uranium?
Recommended Posts