Govt tends to grow if you use violence against it

[powerchuter]

When I define "violence" in order to clarify my meaning, you don't get a pass merely because you define it differently.

You would push a button that would eradicate 50 to 80 percent of the human population of the earth?  By your definition, this would include everybody from contract breakers and petty thieves to serial murderers and heads of state.  Such a move would be an aggression of such monumental proportions that the button would strike you down first.  Would you still then push it, for "the greater good?"

if it struck me down first...
how could I then still push it...

I'm not sure I can follow this fiction...

however, as I said previously...
gladly...

[eques]

Er.

You push it.

You are the first one to be struck down--NOT it strikes you down before you even push it.

[MaineShark]

Getting back to violence, the reason to not use violence, then, shouldn't be because it causes government growth, or escalates situations, or anything like that, but because the use of violence is immoral.

That would certainly be a reason not to use violence.  So far, I've never seen anyone actually prove that claim, though.

And if the use of violence is right in some circumstances, it has to be right for everybody in those circumstances.  Further, those circumstances must be objectively determined.  It is a discussion of moral fact, not a discussion of opinion.

Indeed.

And "violence" is going to be defined as such: any act which inflicts pain or death upon the recipient, whether that be physical, emotional (especially in the case of the emotionally impressionable), or otherwise.

Emotional pain isn't violence.  If I tell someone that I don't like him, and he is hurt by that, that's tough luck for him.

How about this for an accurate definition: violence is any interaction which is anti-consensual.

"Self-defense" is a pretty slippery slope, because it is not clear where the line should be drawn.  If there is an objective standard by which self-defense can be measured, then let's have it.

It is never right to intitiate force against another person, for any reason, ever.

Furthermore, self-defense becomes more difficult to defend when one considers that there are many ways to avoid confrontation, and that some investments that go into winning a potential confrontation could very well be used to prevent that confrontation in the first place.  Instead of a new gun, perhaps an alarm system.  Instead of a flak jacket, perhaps a camera.

Those are your options.  Simply because there is another option, doesn't make one option immoral.  It might make it aesthetically displeasing.  The zero-agression principle does not put a cap on the limit to which you can take your retaliation, so long as you involve only the person who attacked you.  However, there are rules of conduct that define aesthetically acceptable and unacceptable behavior.  If someone tries to kill me and I shoot him in self-defense, that does not violate the ZAP.  If someone tries to kill me and I torture him to death over a period of weeks, that doesn't violate the ZAP either.  But I certainly wouldn't behave that way, and I would shun someone who did, because I find that sort of response to be over-the-top.  Setting a moral limit like the ZAP doesn't mean that we cannot set situational ethics at higher levels.

The ZAP does not prohibit one from defending others, either.  However we can apply situational ethics at a higher level.  For example, I would never defend Russell (among several others) with force, because I know he wouldn't want that.  I expect that I can add you to that list, as well.  It would be aesthetically offensive to me to use violence to rescue a pacifist.

To "sell" it is going to require much more than a list of benefits and drawbacks--it is going to require a change in morality.

Morality never changes.  Morality is, by definition, absolute and unchanging.  People's understanding or moral rules can change over time.  Hopefully in a way that increases their understanding, rather than decreases it.

You would push a button that would eradicate 50 to 80 percent of the human population of the earth?  By your definition, this would include everybody from contract breakers and petty thieves to serial murderers and heads of state.  Such a move would be an aggression of such monumental proportions that the button would strike you down first.  Would you still then push it, for "the greater good?"

That would not be an aggressive act.  At least, not in the technical meaning of the word, which relates to first use of force.  Responsive force cannot be aggressive.

However, I think that the percentages would be higher than that, by a wide margin.  I doubt that more than a small fraction of a percent have never aggressed against another, ever, excluding children too young to do so, and those children would die in that scenario, anyway.

And I would certainly say that I wouldn't push the button, precisely because of the effect it would have on those children.

Joe

[powerchuter]

deleted by admin

[Caleb]

If there was a button to press that would make all the people disappear who aggressed or supported aggression either directly and/or indirectly...against others...to also include any and all fraud...

I would gladly push it...

I would estimate that action would reduce the planetary population by 50 to 80 percent...

Yourself included?

Think about what you're saying:  If you had a button to press that would kill off 50-80 percent of the people (anyone who supported aggression even "indirectly",) in other words commit mass murder, you would "gladly press it"? 

[powerchuter]

deleted by admin

And the censorship continues...

[Kat Kanning]

Rob, Russell asked you to leave this forum if you couldn't stop advocating violence.  Are you planning on ignoring that request?  I'm also asking you to leave now.

[eques]

alaska, have you actually read through this thread?

powerchuter isn't merely advocating "self-defense."  He is advocating a perverse form of retributive justice.

I remain unconvinced that the use of "the button" is not aggressive.  Either the ZAP is being applied incorrectly or there is something fundamentally wrong with the ZAP if it allows this kind of moral perversity.

[MaineShark]

I remain unconvinced that the use of "the button" is not aggressive.

If it kills only those who have aggressed against others, it cannot be aggressive, by definition (speaking technically, again).  Killing an aggressor is reponsive, not aggressive.  That does not mean that it is always beneficial or appropriate.

Either the ZAP is being applied incorrectly or there is something fundamentally wrong with the ZAP if it allows this kind of moral perversity.

The ZAP establishes minimum conduct, not proper conduct.  In some cases, it may be all that is needed.  In other specific situations, we may very well want stricter conduct.  The ZAP is the minimum standard which can be applied to all possible situations, which is why it is called a "universal moral principle."  Or "the universal moral principle," since I am unaware of any others.

To put it another way, someone who only obeys the ZAP is never wrong, but might at certain times stray rather far from actually being right.

Joe

[powerchuter]

If there was a button to press that would make all the people disappear who aggressed or supported aggression either directly and/or indirectly...against others...to also include any and all fraud...

I would gladly push it...

I would estimate that action would reduce the planetary population by 50 to 80 percent...

Yourself included?

Think about what you're saying:  If you had a button to press that would kill off 50-80 percent of the people (anyone who supported aggression even "indirectly",) in other words commit mass murder, you would "gladly press it"? 

Caleb,

I believe I said "disappear" not "kill"...
When a magician makes someone disappear...is that murder?
What if after the trick they go hide forever...is that murder?
Who are you to determine how and where they disappear to?

As much as you think about things...
Don't you think I also think about them...
Direct and indirect aggression and the direct and indirect support of it requires self defense against it...
You defend against it your way...and I'll defend against it my way...

Many people, including you, know their boundaries with me...
You and I...and many others could and can live in peace...

I'm not willing to accept aggression without self defense...
Others make their own choices about this...

There is an old saying that goes..."Fences make good neighbors" because each neighbor knows their boundaries...

The same applies here..."Self defense makes good neighbors" because...once again...each neighbor knows their boundaries...

[lastlady]

alaska, have you actually read through this thread?

powerchuter isn't merely advocating "self-defense."  He is advocating a perverse form of retributive justice.

I remain unconvinced that the use of "the button" is not aggressive.  Either the ZAP is being applied incorrectly or there is something fundamentally wrong with the ZAP if it allows this kind of moral perversity.

Why is it when someone interprets something differently it must be them who doesn't understand? I find language to be very subjective because it seems like there is a serious difference in what we are  all reading here. I assure you I am reading all the posts and I don't read this thread the way that you do.

[powerchuter]

Is advocating self-defense bannable too?

"force" is not the same as "violence"...

but you know everyone is entitled to their assumptions and opinions...

If someone "violently" swings his fist at you and you raise your hand to meet that fist...
And when that fist meets your hand you use your muscles to exert force to stop the movement of the fist to your face...

Is the "force" of your hand stopping the fist violence?

Somehow I wouldn't imagine many people thinking it was...

[eques]

Why is it when someone interprets something differently it must be them who doesn't understand? I find language to be very subjective because it seems like there is a serious difference in what we are  all reading here. I assure you I am reading all the posts and I don't read this thread the way that you do.

Well, obviously, I'm right and everybody else is wrong....

No, really... I think it's far less of a difference in interpretation than it is perhaps a lack of context.  I don't think that language is so subjective that such things cannot be determined.

I find it difficult to shoehorn his button of eradication into self-defense.  For some, obviously, this is not a problem.  But if the eradication of 50-80% of the human race is the sort of thing you find agreeable, I'm not sure there's anything I can say that will make any sense to you.

[eques]

I believe I said "disappear" not "kill"...
When a magician makes someone disappear...is that murder?
What if after the trick they go hide forever...is that murder?
Who are you to determine how and where they disappear to?

You know, maybe I've been looking at this the wrong way.

Maybe powerchuter is attempting to make a satirical comment on the prevalence of violence in society.

I mean, look.  Right now, he's playing word games in an attempt to make it seem like he's not advocating for the non-existence of 50-80% of human population.  Oh, he didn't mean "disappear" as in "not exist," he meant "disappear" as in a magic trick!  You know, like magicians do?  They wouldn't actually die, they just would no longer be around to bother him!  You see, that's not wanting them to not exist, that's just not wanting them in his life, ever!

What is the difference?

Man, I have got to get better at detecting satire.  It'll give me much less frustration when I know not to take somebody so seriously.

[Kat Kanning]

I'm pretty irritated at you, Dada, for starting this thread at a time when I'm trying to tone down the "let's shoot the bastards" talk on this forum.  It seems very unfair to start this discussion when one side of it has been asked not to discuss it here.