The gun lobby is deranged

[dogtowner]

Sensible people would trust you weirdoes with just one well-aimed bullet in the back of the head to save their children. You just keep praying the American people never grows up.

oh ok so murder is justifiable for you. nice.

 

[Iolo2]

oh ok so murder is justifiable for you. nice.

What you cll 'self- defence'?

 

[Gipper]

Sensible people would trust you weirdoes with just one well-aimed bullet in the back of the head to save their children. You just keep praying the American people never grows up.

See this is the kind of thing I find appalling and unacceptable. You and I may be Americans, but other than that, we have NOTHING in common. You will gladly give up your rights to an overpowering tyrannical government and I will not.

 

[dogtowner]

What you cll 'self- defence'?

what is calledinciting violence. quit while.youre behind.

 

[Rafael Norma]

The United States of Amnesia must be one of the few countries where police usually arrives only to pick corpses and take statements; never to prevent crime.

Life's a bitch and you're on your own.

 

[GenSeneca]

Save your breath (or maybe your carpal tunnel.)

Actually, I do have carpal and it was kicking my ass last week and over the weekend. If I seemed more flippant than normal, that's why and, I apologize. Pain has a tendency to erode my patience.

I totally agree that I would not take action against the guy under the circumstances of YOUR EXAMPLE. But THAT WAS NOT MY EXAMPLE. In my example there was no other reason for suicide than the mistaken one I clearly stated.

Are you omnipotent? Are you infallible? I know I'm neither of those and that's why I would never force my own subjective opinions onto the lives of other people. Your example, as I stated, began with the assumption that you had superior situational knowledge to that of the man but, unless you really are omnipotent, you can't know that to be the case.

You can believe yourself to have superior knowledge of the situation (which could only be "true" in a hypothetical situation where you, yourself, set every parameter) but in the real life, without omnipotence, you cannot know your information is superior to that of other people.

If you can admit that you're neither omnipotent nor infallible, then on what grounds do you believe yourself in any way qualified/justified/authorized to impose your will onto others by force?

I accept your doctrine that "No individual has the right to initiate the use of force against others - not for any reason and not under any circumstances."

Only to then say...

That still leads me to believe that your doctrine, although correct as stated, is too inflexible to be the only guide on how we should behave in all circumstances.

So in some circumstances you do feel that you're in some way special, some way superior to other people, in some way qualified/justified/authorized to impose your will on others by force (which is clearly a rejection of the doctrine you just claimed to accept).

You readily admit you have no Right (inalienable), that it's wrong (right & wrong), that it's immoral to initiate force against other people, yet - in some circumstances - you would choose to do it anyway and consider yourself justified in the action. Such a belief is a rationalization (making excuses for behavior you know to be wrong and/or immoral). Rationalization is an informal fallacy of reasoning which renders the argument rationally invalid.

I'm pretty sure you agree that rape is always wrong. I'm confident there are no circumstances under which you you would be willing to rationalize that particular initiation of force against another human being... You seem perfectly comfortable rationalizing (making excuses) for murder, robbery, and slavery as having 'potential gray areas' but not rape. There must be something special about that particular violation of individual rights for you to consider the act of raping someone to be worse (no potential for gray area) than murdering them. So what, in your mind, makes rape an "inflexible" black and white issue with no gray area? My guess would be that you cannot think of a situation, or circumstance, where the act of rape could be rationalized as a way of "achieving a greater good" but I would like to hear what you have to say.

 

[Lagboltz]

Are you omnipotent? Are you infallible? I know I'm neither of those and that's why I would never force my own subjective opinions onto the lives of other people. Your example, as I stated, began with the assumption that you had superior situational knowledge to that of the man but, unless you really are omnipotent, you can't know that to be the case.

You can believe yourself to have superior knowledge of the situation (which could only be "true" in a hypothetical situation where you, yourself, set every parameter) but in the real life, without omnipotence, you cannot know your information is superior to that of other people.

If you can admit that you're neither omnipotent nor infallible, then on what grounds do you believe yourself in any way qualified/justified/authorized to impose your will onto others by force?

So in some circumstances you do feel that you're in some way special, some way superior to other people, in some way qualified/justified/authorized to impose your will on others by force (which is clearly a rejection of the doctrine you just claimed to accept).

Omnipotent, infallible? Of course not. In an emergency situation one can only act on what one knows -- that our friend is hysterically ranting about what he mistakenly believes is his wife's infidelity. Can there be overriding causes? Of course.

What are the upsides and downsides of one's actions.

In my case, if I was mistaken, the guy can always commit suicide successfully when I leave. If I was not mistaken I saved his family from a horrible tragedy.

In your case, you let him commit suicide. If you misread the situation you allow a permanent horrible tragedy with a wife who may wonder why you didn't initiate more forceful action rather than simply trying to convince her hysterical husband with shouted words. You are left explaining to her that you never initiate force against anyone for any reason. If she is not rabidly libertarian she won't accept that explanation kindly.

If you were not mistaken, he is dead. You can tell his wife what you witnessed, but she would still have the same emotional reaction unless she knew of a different reason that she condoned. Do you want to take that chance?

No, nobody is omnipotent or infallible. We just have to try to do what we think is right ("appropriate, suitable, fitting, or proper") under the circumstances. I feel my morality is about average -- certainly not superior like you think. As I said, your moral code is too inflexible for me to guide the best course of actions.

You readily admit you have no Right (inalienable), that it's wrong (right & wrong), that it's immoral to initiate force against other people, yet - in some circumstances - you would choose to do it anyway and consider yourself justified in the action.

No I did not admit that. However, I did readily admit the following:
"No individual has the right to initiate the use of force against others - not for any reason and not under any circumstances."
You inserted the extra phrases:
"that it's wrong (right & wrong), that it's immoral ... "
and claim that I readily admitted to that. You are being dishonest. I did not admit to an immorality; I clearly said that I interpreted the definition "Right" as "entitlement".

I'm pretty sure you agree that rape is always wrong. I'm confident there are no circumstances under which you you would be willing to rationalize that particular initiation of force against another human being... You seem perfectly comfortable rationalizing (making excuses) for murder, robbery, and slavery as having 'potential gray areas' but not rape. There must be something special about that particular violation of individual rights for you to consider the act of raping someone to be worse (no potential for gray area) than murdering them. So what, in your mind, makes rape an "inflexible" black and white issue with no gray area? My guess would be that you cannot think of a situation, or circumstance, where the act of rape could be rationalized as a way of "achieving a greater good" but I would like to hear what you have to say.

I simply can't think of any example right now where I would condone rape or slavery.

Murder yes. Suppose a school bus chock full of kids was stalled across a railroad track with a speeding train bearing down on it with no time for more than one or two kids to exit. Further suppose you are near a switch that will divert the train to a track with a known homeless druggie who has been in and out of jail for robbery to support his habit. He is wearing plugs from an ipod and is unaware of anything. You have 3 seconds to act. I would feel very bad about initiating action to murder the druggie, but that's what I would do.

What would you do?

 

[GenSeneca]

No, nobody is omnipotent or infallible. We just have to try to do what we think is right ("appropriate, suitable, fitting, or proper") under the circumstances.

Each individual should be free to decide that for himself, according to his own fallible judgement, but never at the expense of others.

I feel my morality is about average -- certainly not superior like you think.

You must believe there is something superior about yourself because you have no problem, in *certain* circumstances, imposing your will on others by force, violating their freedom to live their own life according to their own judgement. What is it about your own subjective and fallible opinion that you believe trumps the equally subjective and fallible opinions of others?

Perhaps you take issue with the term "superiority" and you know of a more appropriate term. If I were to overrule your judgement, by force, to stop you from doing what you think "is right ("appropriate, suitable, fitting, or proper") under the circumstances", or forced you to do something you think is wrong (inappropriate, unsuitable, etc.) under the circumstances, what term would you use to describe my total lack of regard for your Right to decide such things for yourself?

You are being dishonest. I did not admit to an immorality; I clearly said that I interpreted the definition "Right" as "entitlement".

I see... You realize you have no Right (inalienable) to violate the rights of other people but, under *certain* circumstances, would choose to do so anyway. You would not consider your actions wrong (right & wrong) nor would you consider your actions immoral... But I'm still curious... If you know you don't have a Right to violate the rights of other people, what grants you the authority to do something you have no Right to do?

You're the one being dishonest (primarily with yourself) by arguing that murder, slavery, or any violation of Rights can, on occasion, be rationally or logically argued as moral acts. They can't. Contradictions cannot exist in a rational or logical argument. Your entire "Morality" consists of contradictions (it is one big gray area), making it irrational and illogical. So that leaves you with Rationalization as the only plausible means of quelling the Cognitive Dissonance that's created by holding two diametrically opposed positions at the same time - murder is both moral and immoral.

You will probably want to claim you don't hold these opposite views of murder at the same time, that circumstance determines when murder is and is not moral, but if I were to ask you if it was moral to murder innocent people - and you were to answer without regard for circumstance - you would have to answer both Yes and No. In the absence of the Rationalization, you do hold those two opposing views at the same time, that's the entire point of creating the Rationalization, to have a plausible excuse that explains the existence of the contradiction.

I simply can't think of any example right now where I would condone rape or slavery.

Rape is probably true but I maintain the charge that you fully support slavery - not the "men in chains working a plantation" kind of slavery but the "civilized" version whereby you take the fruits of one man's labor, by force and without his consent, and then redistribute those fruits to some other individual - who didn't earn it and doesn't deserve it - legally of course... You know this "civilized" form of slavery as the Welfare State (both individual and corporate welfare are immoral forms of slavery).

Murder yes.

We've already established that you can Rationalize violating the Rights of other individuals (except for rape). It's still a Rationalization (you're making excuses), that means you're using fallacious reasoning to make a rationally invalid argument sound plausible... but that's all it does, sound plausible, in reality it's a facade erected to hide the ugly truth beneath the surface: Murder is always immoral.

I would feel very bad about initiating action to murder the druggie, but that's what I would do.

If it's moral to do so, why not go out and start murdering druggies? Why must there be a school bus full of children for your action to be moral? The answer is, of course, Rationalization. Once again your Rationalization (making excuses) for murder takes the form of Conflation, whereby you're conflating an immoral act (murdering an innocent person) with what you perceive to be a moral one (saving lives).

Every such "moral dilemma" is an attempt to equivocate, to create a moral equation by ascribing some unstated value to each component expression; the immoral being a negative (-1), the moral being a positive(+2), and, fallaciously, considering any unstated sum greater than zero(+1) as a rational justification for committing the immoral act. That's not morality, it's a rejection of morality.

 

[cashmcall]

Rape, murder, or enslavement are examples that immutably break moral principles.

That is where we disagree -- either is ... or it isn't. In the continuum of interaction there is an area of uncertainty where different people will judge differently. Even the rigorous laws of physics has an uncertainty principle.

That definition is fine, but there is nothing in that definition that says that judgement of a moral Principle has to be black and white. You are adding that as a requirement.

Temporary is the wrong word for what I consider as moral ambiguity.

Back to the suicide example. You previously stated that preventing a suicide was using force immorally. Suppose you prevent a suicide using force; say just as he is about to squeeze the trigger I whack a gun out of his hand using a baseball bat. Suppose his reason is that he found mysterious emails and then saw his wife hugging and kissing a stranger. I happen to know that she just discovered her long lost brother and not a lover. Don't you think this was a proper use of force for an unnecessary suicide even though I may have broken his finger?

First you say that I "consider the act of murdering an innocent person to be a potentially gray area while I do not". When you call my stance a conflation, you are saying that I was treating a different distinct concept. If I were doing that then in my mind you have not expressed you initial premise carefully when you claim that use of force on another is always immoral. If you want to avoid confusion you will have to carefully define your Universe of Discourse as far as the span of situations that entail usage of force.

Not so. I was only defining self defense as it is commonly known, where you had a broader definition, referring to it as "Right of Self Defense". If you want to define that as meaning coming to someone else's defense, fine. I thought I was clear about that.

Your prior post ended with the statement "No individual has the "right" to initiate the use of force against others - not for any reason and not under any circumstances." That statement was unqualified and allowed all sorts of gray area counterexamples.

If you want to exclude the suicide example and the trolley problem, etc as being a conflation and limit the scenarios in some manner such that there are no extenuating circumstances for use of force, then I would agree with your statement.

So what's next?

Two words...Common Sense.. : sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts..That would be my only answer as to why I might or might not do something..
g

 

[cashmcall]

Rahm Emmanuel:

“I don’t mind being yelled at, like verbally abusive, fine,” he said. “But I think the mayor — and I made this point in an email later to his staff, clearly crossed the line by grabbing me.”
Hastings said that he has interviewed “terrorist leaders…dictators…a lot of politicians…a lot of angry people,” but that no one had ever put their hands on him. The journalist also claimed that Emanuel didn’t seem to be “in full control of what he was doing” during the exchange.​

I’d love to see him charged with assault. But you know the cops would ignore it.
And I agree with Glenn: “I think one reason why these people support gun control is that they assume everyone else is as unstable as they are.”

 

[Iolo2]

Rahm Emmanuel:

“I don’t mind being yelled at, like verbally abusive, fine,” he said. “But I think the mayor — and I made this point in an email later to his staff, clearly crossed the line by grabbing me.”​

Hastings said that he has interviewed “terrorist leaders…dictators…a lot of politicians…a lot of angry people,” but that no one had ever put their hands on him. The journalist also claimed that Emanuel didn’t seem to be “in full control of what he was doing” during the exchange.​

I’d love to see him charged with assault. But you know the cops would ignore it.
And I agree with Glenn: “I think one reason why these people support gun control is that they assume everyone else is as unstable as they are.”

The reason people support gun control,obviously, is that anyone who believes in filling a country with murder-weapons belongs in a madhouse and is not fit to be trusted anywhere.

 

[Lagboltz]

Each individual should be free to decide that for himself, according to his own fallible judgement, but never at the expense of others.

You must believe there is something superior about yourself because you have no problem, in *certain* circumstances, imposing your will on others by force, violating their freedom to live their own life according to their own judgement. What is it about your own subjective and fallible opinion that you believe trumps the equally subjective and fallible opinions of others?

Perhaps you take issue with the term "superiority" and you know of a more appropriate term. If I were to overrule your judgement, by force, to stop you from doing what you think "is right ("appropriate, suitable, fitting, or proper") under the circumstances", or forced you to do something you think is wrong (inappropriate, unsuitable, etc.) under the circumstances, what term would you use to describe my total lack of regard for your Right to decide such things for yourself?

I see... You realize you have no Right (inalienable) to violate the rights of other people but, under *certain* circumstances, would choose to do so anyway. You would not consider your actions wrong (right & wrong) nor would you consider your actions immoral... But I'm still curious... If you know you don't have a Right to violate the rights of other people, what grants you the authority to do something you have no Right to do?

In defining the best moral action for some complex situation I think cashmcall just said it best:
"Two words...Common Sense."

You're the one being dishonest (primarily with yourself) by arguing that murder, slavery, or any violation of Rights can, on occasion, be rationally or logically argued as moral acts. They can't. Contradictions cannot exist in a rational or logical argument. Your entire "Morality" consists of contradictions (it is one big gray area), making it irrational and illogical. So that leaves you with Rationalization as the only plausible means of quelling the Cognitive Dissonance that's created by holding two diametrically opposed positions at the same time - murder is both moral and immoral.

You will probably want to claim you don't hold these opposite views of murder at the same time, that circumstance determines when murder is and is not moral, but if I were to ask you if it was moral to murder innocent people - and you were to answer without regard for circumstance - you would have to answer both Yes and No. In the absence of the Rationalization, you do hold those two opposing views at the same time, that's the entire point of creating the Rationalization, to have a plausible excuse that explains the existence of the contradiction.

Rape is probably true but I maintain the charge that you fully support slavery - not the "men in chains working a plantation" kind of slavery but the "civilized" version whereby you take the fruits of one man's labor, by force and without his consent, and then redistribute those fruits to some other individual - who didn't earn it and doesn't deserve it - legally of course... You know this "civilized" form of slavery as the Welfare State (both individual and corporate welfare are immoral forms of slavery).

We've already established that you can Rationalize violating the Rights of other individuals (except for rape). It's still a Rationalization (you're making excuses), that means you're using fallacious reasoning to make a rationally invalid argument sound plausible... but that's all it does, sound plausible, in reality it's a facade erected to hide the ugly truth beneath the surface: Murder is always immoral.

In the above paragraphs you have been talking about the logic of morality. You have to understand that your reasoning above is not morality itself. It is a model of morality. In physics when a mathematical model is found to have contradictions with reality, the model is inaccurate. Newtons laws of gravity couldn't explain the orbit of the planet Mercury. General Relativity supplanted that model.

You have to supplant your very simple model of morality with something more complex.

If it's moral to do so, why not go out and start murdering druggies? Why must there be a school bus full of children for your action to be moral? The answer is, of course, Rationalization. Once again your Rationalization (making excuses) for murder takes the form of Conflation, whereby you're conflating an immoral act (murdering an innocent person) with what you perceive to be a moral one (saving lives).

Every such "moral dilemma" is an attempt to equivocate, to create a moral equation by ascribing some unstated value to each component expression; the immoral being a negative (-1), the moral being a positive(+2), and, fallaciously, considering any unstated sum greater than zero(+1) as a rational justification for committing the immoral act. That's not morality, it's a rejection of morality.

Again you are trying to make too simple of a model of morality using Boolean logic or arithmetic. My examples were extreme to illustrate that your model is obviously not correct. My examples were like the orbit of Mercury.

In short, morality is way too complicated to be modeled by one short sentence from Ayn Rand.

 

[Gipper]

says it all....

 

[Gipper]

...cause it worked out so well for the native American.....

 

[dogtowner]

The reason people support gun control,obviously, is that anyone who believes in filling a country with murder-weapons belongs in a madhouse and is not fit to be trusted anywhere.

better do something about these as well then, makes up fully a third. and doesnt even count cars.

Knives or cutting instruments
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)
Poison (thats most chemicals)
Explosives
Fire (thats a lot of ground on down to rubbing two sticks together)
Narcotics
Drowning (water and all fluids have to go)
Strangulation (by hand covered above so any sort of thing going around necy)
Asphyxiation