So are automobile accidents. I wear my seatbelt anyway.
Marc
You would have individuals succumb to the whims of those who would rob, rape, and murder. I don’t know who would want your philosophy but it certainly wouldn’t be an individual who valued their life.
Marc
One can reasonably consider self-inflicted harm from harm intentionally cast upon others besides ones self. If I thought that someone who was looking for a meal, high on crack in the streets, who was dumb and desperate walking into my house to steal some items and attacks me out of fear or rage deserved to be killed; the greatest preventive measure I could take against my desire to live for the possibility of being able to have the legal right to kill someone, would be to commit suicide before allowing such hypocrisy into my life. There is no point towards fighting hypocrisy with hypocrisy - it proves for suicide anyways. You can’t help but be a social danger if your answer is “yes”; it simply means that you don’t understand enough about life to make any sort of reasonable decision regarding human consent and human determinism - as such your behavior has already helped facilitate the deaths of many individuals through violent means through your personal contribution to social degeneration. If my answer was “yes” to this question; the only reason I wouldn’t commit suicide is based on the hope that I might be able to fulfill this “yes”. I’m granting myself the permission and the circumstances with which to take another human life; which incidentally is far younger than my own. There is no point to that behavior.
-Justhink
I’m thinking of getting a concealed weapon permit, but i don’t think it’s necessary so long as I carry a pocket knife. Everyday that I consent to live, I am providing a brainwasher the opportunity to seize me and program me to kill someone; I’m allowing myself as a resource for a means with which I disagree.
If someone breaks into my house, I would prevent this through immediate suicide. That’s just basic human responsibility. shrug
-Justhink
The standards for which life becomes valuable change as one begins to comprehend purpose with all the given variables and extreme pressure to comprehend the solution without contradiction. The point becomes: I in no way contribute to society in a means which continuously produces the types of people you would kill. You have contributed to their production.
-Justhink
If someone breaks into your house, there’s only the possibility your life (or by extension, his) is in danger. If only the possibility is reason enough for your suicide, why wait for the break in? Why not commit suicide now, since it’s possible someone might break into your house tonight?
BTW, please don’t commit suicide. I’m just trying to understand this seeming inanity that you trot out in every thread, regardless of topic–i.e., all future harm can be prevented by suicide (inarguable but not terribly satisfying).
You make an excellent point. I’m still trying to figure out how to starve to death without being hospitalized; some very annoying people have dragged me into ER’s twice now, my second time landed me in an institutions for a short spell. Suicide is more contradictory than starvation/dehydration… in fact there is no contradiction to starvation/dehydration. However, suicide is less contradictory than murder. My dilema is that if I am brought back to an ER in spite of my best attempts to just sit in one spot and not do anything; I may get a lock and key into an institution as a drug slave and other boring stuff (being beat by the people who apply for these jobs). If I commit suicide, I contradict myself more than starvation but can suffer similar effects if I fail, which i doubt would occur. I can survive with minimal contradiction if I devote time to constructing omniscient AI feedback access, but that’s the only thing I can figure right now. If I was wealthy, it would be much easier for me to starve/dehydrate bercause I could afford a private property that would not be inspected for at least a month or so (I could pay my bills out for a couple months). To become wealthy, I have to contradict myself more than even suicide; so that’s not an option either. I think on this problem every day, which is inefficient; but i cannot bring myself to settle for a ‘means justify the ends’ approach to my life. I need to figure out how to positively starve to death without being discovered before I am dead.
If the society wasn’t structured such that consent violation wasn’t a necessity to fulfill a desire, this would not be much of a solution to living. I think my largest problem is that I’m effectively a computer now for virtualizing consent of other beings and am truly bored with regards to that potency for success within this society. Unfortunately, with the society shifted so much in that direction, the challenge for ‘virtue’ is insurmountable IMO. I have gone quite a bit over the line already with my internet postings, even though I make an attempt to convey a point with as little short-hand as can be interpreted. If individuals could and did simulate the environment of suicide in their head with regards to consent; I wouldn’t be in the situation I’m in. I seem to be just about the only human being I know who does this right now. There might be others, I just haven’t heard of them. Suicide itself doesn’t solve these problems; it’s the ability to code around all forms of consent violation which solves these problems. Suicide is one of the most critical variables toards solving these issues.
-Justhink
Here’s one for ya, which I was able to argue for a bit. . .
What if The Hamburglar decides that he’s done with his fast-food thievery, and breaks into my house with the unannounced attempt to steal whatever cash and weapons he can find. Mr Hamburglar stumbles across a few rifles I have, and a couple of hundred rounds of ammunition. I come across The Hamburglar in my walk-in closet with my AR-15 in his hands, magazine in the well. Given the fact that someone else’s survival may depend on disarming/disabling him, this would be the only particular case where I could morally justify shooting a burglar who’s only after property.
Sure, I could say he’s armed and is capable of a “clear and present danger to my life, limb, or eyesight, or those of another” [sub]honest to goodness quote[/sub], but my point is that if it would prevent a ne’er-do-well from acquiring a weapon with the apparent intent to use it on myself or anyone elsewhere, I’d shoot. Confused yet?
I guess the same principle applies if you were trying to steal weapons from a military base - "* . . . use of deadly force is authorized. . .*
Tripler
My TV set is not worth the poor fool’s life. My beer, however . . . 
Yeah, but you have the National Security Option, too, we civilians can’t claim that.
In your case with the AR-15, if the perp had it in firing position or reasonably close, I agree. If he/she/it had it by the barrel, butt on the deck, I’d reserve the option to talk first. You leave that option with your “disarming” statement, I just wanted to flesh it out a bit.
UncleBill
hoping not to ever fire in a walk-in closet, owie!
Justhink, why does a satisfying life depend upon your will never being contradicted? Suicide by starvation presupposes this, as I’m understanding you. Why can’t it be satisfying to find ways to deal with those aspects of life beyond your control?
Is there anything in life that is unendurable, except death? Please listen to those “annoying people” you refer to in your post. Their perspectives, and the value they place on having you in their lives–despite the fact that you are a significant complication in their lives–may be interesting to you.
Okay, I haven’t been following Justhink’s posts in other threads; so I don’t exactly know where he’s coming from. Am I correct in assuming that he wants to commit suicide, but that he does not want to “do” anything to kill himself? That is, he wants to die by starvation or dehydration by passive means, rather than to take pills, jump off of a bridge, etc.?
If that’s the case, then I can think of a number of ways he can take the dirt nap without actively “doing” anything other than changing his location. But I won’t post them here.
As for Justhink’s position on the OP, he must remember that other people do value their lives. My own life is certainly more important than anyone’s who is trying to take it.
And to the OP: The taking of a life when you yourself are in danger is justified morally and legally. The important thing to remember is that legally (and possibly morally) you must not be trying to kill; rather you must be trying to stop the attack. If you shoot someone who is attacking you and he runs away, you may not finish him off. If you shoot someone who is attacking you and he dies, then too bad for him.
Case number two. No, it would not (or should not) be legal or moral. If the criminal has stopped his actions, you may not shoot.
Case number three. If you are in fear of life or limb, then it may be justified. I don’t think there is enough information in the scenario, as the answer depends upon the perception of the “victim”.
UncleBill, I guess I should have quantified it, but in a walk-in closet there’s usually only one way in and one way out. But, like you said, if he’s at “order arms” it’s one thing, but the moment he snaps to “port arms” the adrenaline level in my blood is going to rise and his/her options are going to start limiting themselves. However, [sub]and this will open me up to flaming, I’m sure[/sub] I don’t think I would a moral problem if someone was attempting to flee with my personal rifle and ammuniton. Legal problem? You betcha. Moral? I wouldn’t feel as bad as if he were stealing my Van Halen LPs. Your honest thoughts?
With a sticky topic like this, I have to agree with Johnny L.A., you can’t spell out exactly what to do in every situation. It depends a lot on the environment you are in, the intent of the intruder, and the positions of intruder and homowner. . . Too many variables to just give it a carte blanche answer. . .
Tripler
My guns and ammo are locked up anyway.
if you can’t be caught, who does it need to be justified to?
Dal Timgar
If I exersise my will while knowingly affecting the consent of another being (unfortuantely, I see these everywhere so it’s hard for me to tune them out), then I cannot feel that i am actually accomplishing anything worthy of a life lived, rather than a life which takes itself. I know that human being wants what I want… with regards to general patterns of speech and behavior outside of acute specialization, I know how to bypass their ability to achieve their goal. That places me in a ‘God’ position with a not so biased participant (my own desire). The way I see it, and have for a number of years… if I cross that line of treating people like andriods because they weren’t fortunate enough to see what I see with regards to their desire attainment, then I have lost the purpose of feeling entitled, as my lack of action will render them the prize. The prize is not seeking me, it is seeking a process of corrupting me; this, I find to be unacceptable. With the other human being, it has moved towards them because they acted in a means which allows them to percieve sincerity of entitlement through inexperience or impotency. I have a lot of trouble not downloading people who are in my proximity. If it is an aquaintence for a period of weeks, I can run a complete mapping at which point I become bored and begin searching through their history banks to reconstruct the personalities of people they know which I have not yet met. It’s really quite frieghtening.
I cease to be suprized by their responses in belief, emotion, behavior, speech etc… As I begin modifying variations of the mapping to maintain the friendship in my head when it ceases to be possible in the real world, I begin to extract their friends and relatives and their own cognitive progression as they age. To a large degree, that sums up my experience with people. In my effort to prove myself wrong all the time, I find that I place so much pressure on myself for evidence that by the time I realize what has occured, I had totally transcended this personality weeks ago. It is my paranoia and my own creativity which keeps me pushing the envelope, eventually simulating their cognition through stages that they won’t even achieve in life… I push them harder still… “What does this person think when they’re sitting on the toilet glancing at a Readers Digest?” I beat myself to shreds when I recieve answers, any intuition or logic with regards to anything I just smash myself against my own ego, trying to destroy myself and my ability to rationally discern in the process, untimately proving that i cannot possibly be correct. By the time I emerge from this process, the human being in question suprizes me as being so less chaotic than the pressure I placed on them as being. That is when I become depressed around people… when I’m using a higher stress testing of their own personality in my simulation of them then they are. This simulation then tells me about them in a very monotonous way “This is what they’re going to say” “This is what they’re thinking.” “This is what they’re going to do.”
That’s why I’m a suicidal recluse. Starvation suicide actually does contradict itself as it is the logically consistent behavioral expression of a belief in the concept of ‘nothing at all’. It is nihilistic stasis (monism), which is something I personally disagree with with.
-Justhink
This discussion has gotten way too… something… for me.
I’m out.
Well, anyways… that’s my experience with life and others and consent. I do not see a difference between talking to a person and killing a person. “If I say this, they will say this, If I do this they will do this.” What to so many seems like a priviledge, an entitlement, a right and an opportunity has always struck me as meaningless. I’ve had trouble comprehending why people were so abusive to others. I finally had to conceed that they are incapable of seeing the abuse. I believe this to be true with regards to blatant physical violence as with a conversation exchange. My decision not to manipulate a situation where the ability to affect consent through a great many layers of encryption translates to me as not killing a person who walks into my house to attack me. In my experience, that is just what people do all the time. I’m used to this behavior from other beings, becoming violent… it’s as if I’m watching natures algorithms bypass this beings will or perception of being, and they fundamentally cease to be human to me as command level has been disengaged. A court of law cannot tell the difference, any other person would call me a fool for stating that this human being is an imposter, because I do things like that all the time.
I don’t have much room to move around in here in this life… the more I try to make myself wrong the more predictive power and explaintory power I gain. I give personalities the benifit of the doubt of well over a million conspiracy patterns locked in storage… the stress testing and leniency for having free-will I try to give them is astonishing. By the time I think I have totally disproven myself, I find that I am left with a simulation which has stress tested that personality into absurdity. I don’t enjoy this existence… yet peoplke consider this an opportunity, they thrive off of these exploits. It is that act which makes them kill other beings in self-defense… they are not used to observing it, interacting with it, they don’t see it in themselves.
-Justhink
They don’t see that this is what they do every waking moment of their lives… ‘break into houses and rob people, attack peoples lives directly’. If I treated them like they treat the burglar, I would be violating their consent. “Watch what you ask for”, is an apt phrase for this topic. I literally don’t have the luxury to treat people that way, because I would be attacking too many people… people are ALWAYS doing this crap. That’s what people do. This process occurs long before someone breaks into your house to rob you. These decisions are made by you long before the event occurs… the events are precipitated by you. You do this act all the time. That is my point along this line.
sigh
-Justhink
Justhink: I’m sorry, but I just don’t have the energy to really get into your posts. You seem to be hung up on violating the consent of other people. This should not be an issue. Every living thing has one overriding concern: to get ahead. An amoeba will hunt and kill, say, a paramecium. A climbing plant will strive for heights, even though its actions may kill the plant it’s climbing upon. Creatures capable of thought make decisions all the time, and they must live – or die – with those decisions. For example a lioness may attack a wildebeest. She will rely on her experience to gauge the attack. If she makes a wrong decision, she may actually be killed by the wildebeest. (Hey, it can happen.) Or by attacking one animal instead of another, she may miss out on a meal that she would otherwise have eaten.
So it is with humans. But human thought is more complex than “see the food, get the food”. A human who wants to prey on other humans must weigh the risks. A burglar has, or should have, a reasonable expectation of confronting an armed homeowner. Which is to say that a burglar, by practising his profession, has accepted the risk that he will be killed as a consquence of his actions. So the onus is, I believe, entirely on the burglar; not the homeowner. The homeowner will not go hunting for burglars; only those burglars who make the decision to burgle a house are in danger.
Now I read your posts and I think to myself, “Here is a person who will not make decisions because of the way they may affect other people.” But why become a recluse? Are your decisions any more life-changing than anyone else’s? Probably not. I think you should not worry about affecting others’ lives. Most people are capable of recovering from a variety of affronts, real or imagined. Unless you actually go out and attack people on the street, or rob them, or do other socially-unaccetable things, I don’t see any reason for you to crawl into a shell.
Face it: There is virtually nothing you can do that will not affect others. Even posting on this message board affects people. Paying your rent allows your landlord to pay his taxes which support national policy that may lead to the deaths of thousands.
You’ve only one life to live. I think you should live it.
It’s not a matter of ‘affecting other people’; it’s a matter of violating the known consent of another human being in a premeditative fashion… to virtualize their consent against their informed will. How could one possibly ‘get ahead’ doing this?
Ignorant individuals can, but this does not exist as a luxury of behavior for the entire sequence of pressures which can be applied towards a life. It becomes clear that when consent has become effortless to simulate, ones only challenge remains in solving for consent. Solving for their consent to have ever been born in the first place; an impossible calculation if the consent of others is discarded in the process.
-Justhink
No, it’s not a luxury. It is essential, as can be seen by my examples. Violation of consent is expected; we must only make reasonable efforts to avoid violating another’s “consent”. Do you think the jaguar worries about violating the consent of the zebra?
As far as this relates to the OP, the assailant does not have your consent to attack you. Therefore, he gives up his right to not be attacked without his consent. Or put another way: by attacking an individual, the assailant is actually giving his consent to a defensive attack. Thus, there is no violation of the instigator’s consent.