A single salient question; is there a human right to self defense?

If you put things in their proper perspective, you wouldn't moan over such things, when I served as a Police Officer, I carried 24/7 and I still do, most people are good people and not a threat, however, there are Animals out there, and I have prevented men from Raping a woman and other Crimes, that had I not been armed, and just called 911 and allowed someone to get Raped, that is just not acceptable.

 

Physical reality is a shared reality. Consider the car in your driveway, you can see it and touch it. Let us consider the possibility that the car isn't real but instead some psychosis. How would you determine that it is real? You can determine it is real because all other living beings acknowledge its existence. No matter what random stranger you ask about your car they would be able to see it or at least touch it. Even your dog acknowledges the cars existence when it gets excited to go on a car ride. Your cat acknowledges its existence when it sits on the hood.

You couldn't get 100% of all beings to acknowledge your feelings or principles as being valid and existing as a part of our shared objective reality and so your feelings unlike the car are subjective and only exist in your own subjective experience of reality. They are not facts. They are personal experiences feelings and opinions and they are only valid to you and within the groups that happen to share similar but never exactly the same experience.

 

"Industrialized society" and "excellent social structure" does not change human nature.

 

They are trying to describe moral relativism, a common Marxist Democrat meme. Every man is a law unto himself and determines for himself what is moral and what is not. That's why the Marxist Democrats claim no one can judge their actions. Only they, as individuals, can judge their actions.

It'w why the Marxist Democrats believe it is ok to give sanctuary to illegal aliens even if those illegal aliens kill Americans.

 

You are arguing for moral relativism. That every man is a law unto himself and that no one else can judge his actions.

That is *not* an emotional argument. It is a fact based argument.

Moral relativism never ends well. That also is a fact.

 

It is *NOT* a poor way to live where *I* live. The ability to kill rabid animals I encounter or who enter my homestead is an important function. It is *NOT* a poor way to live. I don't consider criminals to be much different from rabid animals.

 

Arguing whether moral relativism is good or bad is like arguing whether gravity is good or bad. Morality is subjective.

I think establishing a moral consensus can be better than every man for himself but it can also be to the detriment certain individuals who cannot or refuse to comply with the established moral system. Homosexuality vs religion is a common example of this. Moral consensus works best when it is constrained to ensuring the most basic necessities of life.

 

Homosexuality is a matter all by itself regardless of what Religion may teach about it,
If two people of consenting age meet and decide to live together, take care of each other and get Married, why should anyone object ?
If what they do is a sin, they will have to face judgment from an even higher court than any human court, hence no man need interfere with them or judge them.

 

I'm still allowed to shoot them right?

 

I met a very nice couple, and they told me their story, they had both been married, had children, grand children, and were in their late 40's one had just been widowed and was living alone, and set for life financially.

The other also a Grandma, got kicked to the curb after hubby found a hawty twenty year old Prostitot, Divorced her, and married the twenty year old.

Both women were sitting at a bar drinking and started talking and comparing stories, and became friends, and a year later, decided to live together in the widow's upscale Long Island Mansion..... They were still in the Closet and simply told everyone they were room mates....

Both had failed to find suitable guys after many fruitless dates and one night stands, and finding each other was Serendipitous, they had no idea how or why.

Now why would I object to that ?

 

It makes sense that older societies would promote such religious values and see these liberal ideals as being immoral. Bearing children was more essential to the success of people in those times. The consequences of these liberal ideals is very evident in the depleteing birth rates of western civilizations. Homosexuality plays a very small part in this but it is the many small things that have large consequences. Taking women out of the role of being mothers first and workers second, allowing abortions and birth control, no longer pushing the importance of marriage and therefore sustaining housholds thats can support large families, all create a culture that cannot grow or even sustain its population.

 

...deleted...

 

In view of current World over population, how is this a bad thing ???

 

There is no right to self defense in Australia. This guy is facing murder charges after he found a guy in his daughter's bedroom at 3 in the morning. People aren't allowed to defend their children?

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/man-dies-...ng-detained-by-homeowner-20160327-gnruib.html

 

That would appear to be the case in this matter.

 

No, according to Australian law, if you find a Rapist Raping your wee Child, you should take no action and call and wait for the Police to arrive, and let the man continue harming your wee Child.

 

Morals are those beliefs and traditions that provide survival for a society. Survival of society *is* good. It helps the human race survive.

Moral relativism does *not* provide for the survival of a society. It is bad. It does not help the human race survive.

Homosexual acts do *not* help society survive. Such acts cannot result in progeny and can spread disease. Therefor such acts are typically shunned by society.

 

Bowling, stamp collecting and celibacy also do not help the society to survive. We must shun them.....especially bowlers

 

A happily married man has multiple affairs with many Teenaged girls and makes several girls pregnant, finally contracting AIDS / HIV and infects his wife, is that better since no Homosexual acts were involved and females were made pregnant perpetuating the human race ????

 

It won't cure overpopulation because the majority of the world doesn't adopt your moral code. Only liberalism will disappear.

 

Time is an abstract concept. Money is an abstract concept.

So, what is influencing your arguments? Anthropology, Sociology, or philosophy?

 

In the UK you have the right to self defence.
But you may be judged for it. It must be proportional and only the jury is going to decide whether it is or not.

The police guideline is this. If he has a knife (or other weapon), you can pull a gun.
If he is unarmed you cannot.

Interesting legal precedent here.
Shooting a man in the back, not allowed. If he isn't facing you he isn't a threat.

 

But it is ok to ececute prisoners by shooting them in the back of the head when they are laying on the ground as in loughall, eh?

 

Tell that to the defendant in R. v Lindsay.

 

That looks like something Ayn Rand would say. She was a pseudo-philosopher who made her own definition of axiom, probably from some statements of Mises that she seems to have misconstrued or read too much into. Here's a real definition of axiom: 'that which commends itself as evident'. All definitional truths, such as 'all men are mortal' and 'Socrates is a man' and 'one is the lowest cardinal number' are axiomatic. All self evident truths, or properly basic beliefs, are axiomatic. It is true that those propositions which cannot be consistently denied are axiomatic, but they definitely don't exhaust the concept of axiom.

Moral imperatives are only binding on moral agents. I hope you don't make a habit out of reversing your position from one response to the next like you just did when you went from saying that you thought it was wrong to rape someone regardless of their age to saying that rape is not always wrong.

Anyone who thinks it's okay to force a girl into marriage and then rape her is just as mistaken as the guy who says that 1+1=5.