MAMEWorld Forums - Welcome to the War Room

> See you're applying a moral framework here. There are others whose moral frameworks
> don't permit violence, even when attacked. You're saying it's a "natural right", but
> that's only true in your own belief system. Christians with a "strict" interpretation
> of Luke 6:27-31 ("But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who
> hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes
> you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not
> withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who
> takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do
> to you, do so to them.") and the more orthodox Hindus and Buddhists would say that
> there's no "natural right" to violent self-defence. Why are you so sure your morals
> are right and "natural"?
>
> > I mean, it's "easy" for some thug to maybe mug or stab you, or perhaps rape your
> > wife. I never said that just because something was easy or "natural" automatically
> > made it a right. Breathing and Self Defense were merely basic examples. No single
> > thing can take that away from you. Nothing can, nor should forbid it.
>
> Once again, you're asserting that your ethics are natural - that the things you
> consider immoral are immoral in the absolute, and the things you consider to be
> "natural rights" are also rights in the absolute. What grants you the moral authority
> to make these claims?
>

Pacifism. I get it. Sure. That is also a freewill choice of anyone that wants to li... er, die that way.

So. You're saying that since the very concept of pacifism exists, that no single free-willed entity should be allowed the opportunity of self preservation? What grants YOU the moral authority to make that claim?

Okay. No harm should come to anyone. Lets go with that concept for a moment. Lets say you're a bystander, enjoying a relaxing evening at the park. You see a number of punks gathered around and following (just putting the saddest scenario out there) an elderly lady. Then they start verbally harassing her. Before you know it, they're shoving her around, then she's on the ground, they're kicking her. You sit there like a (I don't know what, maybe chanting *your Buddhist mantras or whatever)... Then she dies of her injuries, and the punks walk away laughing about it.

Due to your (or whoever's) stance on non-violent intervention, would you say you're partially responsible for this woman's death since you didn't do jack-shit to help her?

Sure, you might've got your ass beat too, but the survival of the lady would've greatly increased.

> > > But that aside, if you feel you need a gun for self-defence, you live in a
> violent,
> > > fucked-up society.

If you're a 105 lb (48 kilos) female, and a 280 lb rapist has you backed into a corner, I'm not sure asking nicely is going to persuade the rapist to leave you alone.

A gun allows a victim the chance of survival. Would she need to use it? Of course not. The threat of injury or death to the rapist (again, another example of self preservation) is a deterrent. So therefor, in this particular circumstance, having a gun is justified. I can't understand why anyone would think it wouldn't be.

> Most religions, including Christianity and orthodox Judaism, frown on vindictiveness.
> "An eye for an eye" is about proportional punishment, as in you don't kill someone
> for just blinding you in one eye. This is completely lost in politicians' "tough on
> crime" rhetoric.
>

If you're going to go the Biblical route here, then do you think that Jesus wouldn't have allowed anyone to defend themselves?

Take the time Jesus was going to be arrested (before he was to be crucified). His disciples did carry weapons with them. Swords, as I'm sure you're aware.... Even back then, there were mortal threats. To not be armed for protection would be foolish.

I know it's not like that today... At least, not in a lot of places. That's not to say there aren't dangerous areas.... (I could say more here, but it'd just be rambling)

There's also the concept of Justice. If nobody should face the consequences of their actions, then those exercising their "free-will" to hurt others can get away with it, scot-free. Following a non-interventionist/pacifist philosophy would suck some serious Equus ferus caballus fallace. But, I guess that's okay if that's what anyone chooses to do. It's not MY funeral.

> The reported rape rate is apparently 5% higher
> than the US (be aware that non-consensual oral or digital penetration is considered
> rape in Australia, while in the US it's not included in rape statistics, as it's
> defined as sexual assault).
>

Digital Penetration?

> When you expect
> others to have guns, you start carrying guns, and when there are guns everywhere,
> volatile situations escalate into gunfights.

Not necessarily... I'll have to disagree. Again, I refer you back to the idea of self preservation. Things would have to get highly volatile before reaching the level to warrant use of a firearm. That's more likely to happen in criminal elements, such as gangs or drug dealers. You're more likely to find the criminal elements in the very same areas where there are high rates of crimes (they're also gun-free zones... coincidence? Not at all). ....Not in circles where law-abiding citizens are the majority.

*Buddhist Mantras... That was only an example. I don't know if you actually are a Buddhist, if so, no offense was meant.

LEVEL-4

Edited by Tomu Breidah (03/18/18 03:55 PM)