Woman's Survival

page: 8
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I agree, quitting is not the way to go. I am hopeful Darkelf will return. If she does, she will have more to add. If she doesn't return, well she can benefit from just reading our posts.

Back on track;
I think learning to protect yourself is a great idea. There are disciplines that allow you to be in harmony with peace while learning to defend. You can repeatedly flip your attacker to the ground every time he strikes. This will keep you from harm and make him exhaust himself. I feat though that if there are multiple attackers, you choices are limited to fight or flight.




posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Still no matter how or what tool you choose to utilize...the technology is great but if you are lousy in skills.....well the skills still need to be maintained, refined, even nutured.


(Borrowed from the firearms thread)

The fact of having to practice is true. (and lacking space and equipment is truly irritating, as I've quite a fondness for the bow and arrow...)

Is a part of that practice the mental willingness to 'do what is necessary'?

...is that something that one may actively practice?



THank you for your educational background..in your courses you are taking.


You're quite welcome. Did the knowledge bring about any thoughts?

If nothing else, it's easier to understand why I live in a bubble..


Indeed, it is through my studies in philosophy this semester that I stumbled upon another idea that fits quite well with Dark Elf's (paraphrased) words: To sit on the fence is to get a sore bum.

The idea then is Praxis -- an intersection of action and theory. Not only a meeting place, but a complete interaction of the two.
The image I have of praxis is a person walking along a line on the ground - one foot on one side, one foot on the other.
To walk directly on the line is to do neither, and to walk only on one side or another is to be incomplete. (And of course, in the end, the line is artificial.)

One cannot have just action, nor just thought; it's not an issue of think, then act, but acting-thinking, or vice versa. Thinking while acting, acting while thinking.


I bring this to light because it augments our previous discussion: There is, I think, a necessary intersection, interaction between theory/morals and action/self-defense.

Likewise, in another class, we discussed the "only" justifiable form of murder -- which is self-defense. The rest of the class automatically agreed, even the teacher (who is, otherwise, a pacifist). However, the discussion continued to include that people (assuming they are of a sound mind) who have killed in self-defense are more often than not messed up from the experience. (of course, this begs the question: was the act of self-defense worth it, if one is able to keep living, but will always be horribly affected by this traumatic experience?)


There are many ways to defend oneself that does not automatically presume to beat the ever-lovin' crap out of someone. I accept that. However, it returns around to the issue of being willing (and able when the time comes) to physically carry through with those actions.

Any situation is possible, and to even begin thinking of all the variations gives me a headache. (I tried, it didn't work the way I thought it should.)
I am armed with how to hurt, maim and kill people... not only from movies, but from people who've explained various techniques... (nevermind my own morbidity which provides an entire host of ways to inflict various levels of pain).

But, there's a very deep and wide line for me between thinking about hurting someone (how many people have I killed in my thoughts and dreams?), and actually _doing_ it.
That is the border which I am completely unsure that I am willing to cross.

Again, I know that I _can_... I beat up a pillow once, but discontinued due to thinking about the possible consequences. There's only one time in my life where I was seriously in a position to do lethal damage, and, well frankly, I put myself there as a challenge to and of myself.
In both of these situations, I was acting and thinking.

At this moment, I realize that I am not practicing praxis. I'm thinking about acting, but not acting. (And, considering the genre of this particular conversation, I'm grateful for that!) I'm not even practicing actions because, when it all boils down, I'm not sure that I want that knowledge or responsibility.

Conversely, I have a responsibility to myself and to my loved ones...


hrm. As always, I shall keep pondering. However, right now, I must find something to eat and review for class.

Thank you Orange Tom -- you are right. In all respects, life and conversation, we must survive.


~Diseria


P.S. I thought of another possibility -- because we have access to the text directly by/under our nicknames, she may have changed her text color and added 'banned member' in herself. Maybe she's taking an ats vacation, maybe her hubby got the transfer...?



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Diseria,

Yes it is part of the practice including the mental willingness to do what is necessary for ones survival. THe key operative word here is survival.

For the Human of the species this included the surviavl of their offspring. Huge calcualted critical decisions are involved here for people every day in the practice of survival. Most of them involving the presence of instinct and basics in training ....through Love. We want our offspring to survive...to survive even ourselves. Though I must admit ..with much modern education and rationalization, this as Whitewave clearly states, is often instinct gone arwy. She is correct and in the Bulls Eye..on this one. In some arenas of this field...education ...people have chosen to sacrafice thier children for ease and relaxation. For a lifestyle. For this fingerprint I vote no confidence in modern education.
In my heavy handed bias this instinct and schooling/knowlege has been replaced with a remote controller and telephone keypad...even a keyboard or a game controller. Not real survival training and thinking.

No reasonable thinking person wants to outlive thier offspring. We dont want to perish early in our lives for sure...but most thinking loving parents want their offspring to survive them and also the assurance that they will in fact survive them. How many people..adults do you know that when their grandchildren come to visit ..they literally light up..in delight?? Very telling here. Very telling.

Yes this instinct is something that one can cultivate and practice. Motherhood is a prime example as is Fatherhood. Proper raising has alot to do with developing the instinct and knowlege.

However the learning in our lives actually never ends...there comes a time for us when school is out. YOu must put it into practice. With this actual utilization comes confidence and the intimate knowlege that the instincts/training are correct. The training/schooling is and was correct. WHy..??? Because school is out and you are now in the field actually putting what works into practice...not theoretical..but actual.

Class room education and actual field experience are often related but in practicality quite different. The basics apply but are often applied differently from the very sanitary convenient theoretical labratory conditions of classrooms.

This is when you realize that School is Out!!!!

I am tonight getting ready to go on 12 hour shifts...on a special job. I have been training for this job for almost two years. School is out now.
The rubber will meet the road here. I will be doing this in the field ...for a long part of this year. School is definitely out. This does not mean the learning stops..not at all...but school is out so to speak. This is where for me the rubber will meet the road.

By the way...your posting on Praxis is intresting. I have heard of the Aristotillian method and have also heard from selected peoples that in theoretical science there is a type of dichomoty going on in logic between Aristotillian methods and reasoning and Platonic methods and reasoning. Some scientists advocating one method and the other around thier other champion. I was startled to learn this from a teacher. I got the feeling this began to touch on mysticism so to speak. It was the background the basis for thier scientific religious system of thinking. Very intresting to sense that in the deep hallowed halls of scientific reasoning and logic it can border on mysticism. These are their gods of logic.

Yes understand about your courses...this also accounts for your usage of the term.."your bubble." No problem here. I myself choose to live in much of a bubble. Hence my positing earlier that I am very antisocial with those I choose to be so. I am particular about the company I keep.

I also have a insight into your sensitivity on these subjects and concepts.
Thank you.

Gotta shove off here...alot of preparations before begining 12 hour shifts.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   
OrangeTom,



In some arenas of this field...education ...people have chosen to sacrafice thier children for ease and relaxation. For a lifestyle. For this fingerprint I vote no confidence in modern education. [snip] Not real survival training and thinking.


No argument there. Technology has given people the opportunity to be lazy, and they've taken advantage of that. Makes it very difficult to change minds... assuming that the minds have ever even developed!

Logic should be a requirement in middle school, not only for philosophy in college. Critical thinking likewise.

And survival has changed its face... instead of hunting for our meals, we hunt for paychecks. Instead of sharing our meals, we are involved in heartless competition...

Check out Gandhi's Seven Deadly Sins.

This is why I did not go into business management!
I refuse to exchange my passion for a paycheck. This system is not the most correct it could be... (of course, what is the alternative? ...and how to affect that change? I don't know - been pondering that one for years.)




However the learning in our lives actually never ends...there comes a time for us when school is out. YOu must put it into practice. With this actual utilization comes confidence and the intimate knowlege that the instincts/training are correct. The training/schooling is and was correct. WHy..??? Because school is out and you are now in the field actually putting what works into practice...not theoretical..but actual.

Class room education and actual field experience are often related but in practicality quite different. The basics apply but are often applied differently from the very sanitary convenient theoretical labratory conditions of classrooms.


The beautiful thing with ethics/morality is that you _can_ practice what you learn... I'm no social butterfly, but I am required to engage with people socially when I get groceries, or go to class. I have finally realized that I _am_ a social creature... (I always was, but I completely denied it because I wanted no part of a society gone wrong.) And now I have to figure out what it means for me to be part of this society...



As far as the differences between the Aristotillian method and the Platonic method, I shall have to do further research. I'm familiar with Aristotle, because the Logic that I am learning is based on his teachings, as well as my understanding of Virtue Ethics. I'm aware of plato/socrates, but I haven't actually dug into much of his/their work.

However, your thoughts on the methods' connections to mysticism intrigues me. Would you elaborate?



Yes understand about your courses...this also accounts for your usage of the term.."your bubble." No problem here. I myself choose to live in much of a bubble. Hence my positing earlier that I am very antisocial with those I choose to be so. I am particular about the company I keep.


You have chosen your bubble. And to some extent, so have I. However, in the same breath, I must add that my bubble was also given to me. I was sheltered, and have chosen to remain sheltered. Arguably, you've lived more life than I (most people have
), so to some extent you left the bubble your parents gave you, went out into the world, probably got into a few scuffles (for purposes of this thread) and chose to return (or rather, create a new bubble).

If I may ask (and maybe you've answered this and I am simply failing to remember), what is it that you do? ...especially that required 2 years of schooling?

Off to class again! Let's see if I understand more today than I did tuesday..



As always, i Thank You.
~Diseria



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   
(taken from Cut Global Warming by Vegetarianism?)


Originally posted by Anok
It's like the old proverb...

If you see your friend getting beaten up by a dozen people, you wouldn't join in cause you couldn't do anything about it.


My reply:
Then I'd have to question the friendship... (This is one reason why I don't have many friends -- because I *would* jump in.)



That was my knee-jerk reaction to Anok's statement. I've never had many friends, not only because I'm quite the odd duckling, but simply _because_ I would lay my life down for them. Never had the opportunity to prove my statement, but was close a few times to decking people who wouldn't back off.

So, now I'm curious when that particular thought process changed, and, more importantly, why...

Was I that angry in high skool that I was willing to hurt someone? (Am I not angry anymore?) I was angry with the world, with my immediate society... but that hasn't changed. (Although, arguably I see the possibility of working towards a change in society, which I did not see before.) Maybe I've internalized my anger? re-directed it so that the only anger that shows is twisted back to myself?

Was it that, at that particular time in my life, Friends (do notice the capital F) were rare? (....frankly, they are still exceedingly rare...)

Was it an issue of honor? 'You're my Friend, thus I must defend your honor when you cannot?' If it was, it was totally subconscious as I don't recall any notions of honor...

So, wtf changed!?

Have I drawn some weird line within myself when I began studying philosophy, ethics, morality?

If that is the case, then I've crossed over the line and gone to the other side -- which is equally as incomplete as the other side (pacifism verses aggression).

.....hrm. I'm gonna hafta ponder this for awhile...



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   
What a great thread. Ladies what can i say, my mother use to tell me "the meek shall inherit the earth" this translates to "the women shall inherit the earth" and that always put a smile on my face. If it ever comes about IMO that will be great day, she also explained to me why women are put down by men. Women give life something small minded men fear, so they've always attempted to control women, in truth the power lies with them.

I just hope that if situation x does happen men will understand their role. Humanity will not be saved by men they are in fact dispensable when considering priorities for long term survival. All men need to think about is providing shelter, food and security for the women and children in their group.

.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diseria
OrangeTom,

As far as the differences between the Aristotillian method and the Platonic method, I shall have to do further research. I'm familiar with Aristotle, because the Logic that I am learning is based on his teachings, as well as my understanding of Virtue Ethics. I'm aware of plato/socrates, but I haven't actually dug into much of his/their work.

However, your thoughts on the methods' connections to mysticism intrigues me. Would you elaborate?



I have been taught that the two areas of philosphy involving the scientific community stem from two sources with often two different results due to the methods. These are from a begining point of logic Aristotlian origins and Platonic origins.

What I have also been taught in methods and I found very amusing was that in the scientific community in their wilder speculations and philosophys, if you were to read some of thier material before it was cleaned up their wilder speculations or begining points would look something to the effect of.....

"A long time ago in a galaxy far far away......"

This is the mystical part...the philosophy part.

I have also been taught that there are two different types of scientist/thinkers at work here. The pure scientific types ...pure logic Mr Spock. Speculative thinkers, number cruncher types.
And then there are the practical scientist/engineer types...who look for ways to use all this speculation and turn it into workable practical every day solutions to problems.

Truth be known we need both to get things done. I am also told that they often make fun of each other..where the public cannot see it openly.

But we do need both parts. To my knowlege the sequence of events is such that some deep philosphical thinker who in actuality can hardly tie thier shoes without messing it up...comes up with an idea and then often years and years later when enough hardware and techniques have been mastered by the practical scientists this early philosopher/scientist's ideas can be brought to frutition.

This can reach mystical almost Holy proportions when a breakthrough is made on earlier work.
I do find it intresting history to read the sequence of events of inventions and patterns of thought which have been turned into products which today make our lives easier and more comfortable. Most peoples have no reason at all to seek this information or pattern of thinking but I find it fascinating.




If I may ask (and maybe you've answered this and I am simply failing to remember), what is it that you do? ...especially that required 2 years of schooling?


I probably did not exactly state this correctly ....2 years of schooling and training.
I am a machinist with a special qualification as a nuclear fueler.

Gotta go get ready..long shift tonight.
Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Your fondness for the bow and arrow....excellent. Keep this skill...cultivate it ..pass it on to your children. It is a worthwhile skill. All that has happened is that modern materials have been used to replace older techniques and materials but in the end like firearms it is the user which will make up much of the difference.

It is the same with firearms. Ironically the olde Black Powder is making a huge comeback. Grant you now ...new materials new techniques just like the bow and arrow. In the end it is still black powder and the shooter alone. Where the rubber meets the road.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   


"the meek shall inherit the earth" this translates to "the women shall inherit the earth"


Women Meek?
Heck, you should check out the little town that I grew up in. The ratio on women to men was a 10 to 1. There were never any fights betweenmen but pleeenty of battle royales between the "ladies".
To top it off the great lady that I eventually married, takes no guff from any man much less another woman. My wife has been known to floor a Black Beret for pinching her backside. Her response. reach forward, grab ahold (I am sure there is no need to describew what she grabs) and then twists.
Yeah women are the meek
>>>>bows out quickly



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Okay, a momentary aside...


Division of Philosophy

The different parts of philosophy are not distinguished by Plato with the same formal precision found in Aristotelean, and post-Aristotelean systems. We may, however, for convenience, distinguish:

* Dialectic, the science of the Idea in itself;
* Physics, the knowledge of the Idea as incorporated or incarnated in the world of phenomena, and
* Ethics and Theory of the State, or the science of the Idea embodied in human conduct and human society.
source

Aristotillian logic:

As Jonathan Lear has put it, "Aristotle shares with modern logicians a fundamental interest in metatheory": his primary goal is not to offer a practical guide to argumentation but to study the properties of inferential systems themselves.
Source (and helpful guide to logic, although somewhat confusing)

Differences between Aristotle's and Plato's philosophies:

First, Aristotle argues, forms are powerless to explain changes of things and a thing's ultimate extinction. Forms are not causes of movement and alteration in the physical objects of sensation.
Second, forms are equally incompetent to explain how we arrive at knowledge of particular things. For, to have knowledge of a particular object, it must be knowledge of the substance which is in that things. However, the forms place knowledge outside of particular things.
Further, to suppose that we know particular things better by adding on their general conceptions of their forms, is about as absurd as to imagine that we can count numbers better by multiplying them.
Finally, if forms were needed to explain our knowledge of particular objects, then forms must be used to explain our knowledge of objects of art; however, Platonists do not recognize such forms.
The third ground of attack is that the forms simply cannot explain the existence of particular objects. Plato contends that forms do not exist in the particular objects which partake in the forms. However, that substance of a particular thing cannot be separated from the thing itself.
Further, aside from the jargon of "participation," Plato does not explain the relation between forms and particular things. In reality, it is merely metaphorical to describe the forms as patterns of things; for, what is a genus to one object is a species to a higher class, the same idea will have to be both a form and a particular thing at the same time.
Finally, on Plato's account of the forms, we must imagine an intermediate link between the form and the particular object, and so on ad infinitum: there must always be a "third man" between the individual man and the form of man.
Source


As far as I can tell, and simply deduced from skimming the surface, the issue begins with the idea of Forms -- for example: Plato says that for a table to exist, there must be a Form of a table, an Idea, that is eternal and unchanging. Aristotle says, that's fine, but forms don't account for the changes that we see happening. (Plato might retort that then the forms that we see are not the true forms, but versions of the form, none of which are the true form/idea. and so on...)

As far as how this relates to the logic aspect, I don't know. Might be something more on those websites that I didn't see.


From reading, I've discovered that I'm learning Aristotealian logic. (Curiously, there's nothing mentioned in my book about Platonic logic -- perhaps they did not want to confuse the students because learning about logic and arguments is confusing enough!
)



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
You could always resort to how they did it in the old days. A washable cloth. But then you're going to need produts to wash the stuff with.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   
^ Really, that should be a thread unto itself. Surely there are other philosophers here on ats who have a better understanding of the differences...

Anyhow, I'm not sure about 'meek' referring to women.
Arguably, for many many years, it was quite virtuous for a woman to be meek -- this was seen as humility, the opposite of pride. (Some people argue that the extent to which the meekness was carried out was actually an extension of patriarchal values... but we shall not go there.) (for an example absolute meekness/humility from literature, see Boccaccio's Patient Griselda

I've also heard that 'meek' refers to the poor, the destitute... Although I'm never sure exactly how that would happen. (IF it ever does, I'll be one of _many_ inheriting the earth...)

(This is the problem/fun of ambiguous words and phrases -- you never know exactly what they mean, and anything you come up with puts a different spin on the original phrase... nevermind the context of the pharagraph in which the phrase is placed...)
((This is why I'm an English major & a writer! I love this crap!!))

However, as is the overall matter of discussion, I don't know as though being meek (man or woman) would yield a good result in sit x. Indeed, my 'default mode' is meek, which is a flip-flop from high skool (as I expounded upon in an previous post). In the event of sit x, I'd probably maintain my meekness simply so that people did not automatically assume me to be an enemy/attacker... I'd rather be the flower on the wall that no one really knows... to the extent that no one knows what I'm capable (or, more realistically, not capable) of doing...
Heck, _I_ don't know what I'm capable of doing!



I've been pondering my flip-flop, and have realized nothing further about the actual change in mentalities.
However, this realization is enough, methinks, to warrant the next step: the middle ground. Even further: Praxis.


And with regards to the bow and arrow -- I agree, OrangeTom. It comes down to the user, and the user's skills. The same with a knife... (although I'd prefer to learn how to throw a knife, rather than its use in close combat. As always, I like keeping a safe distance from any physical situations...)
This is why I need to get out into the country!!!



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   
No idea why I was banned, but thanks to Skeptic Overlord, I've been reinstated. Thanks for all the kind words. I really appreciate the sentiments. It's kind of like looking down at your own funeral.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
No idea why I was banned, but thanks to Skeptic Overlord, I've been reinstated. Thanks for all the kind words. I really appreciate the sentiments. It's kind of like looking down at your own funeral.



WHOOHOO

Good to see you back!!

Yeah guessed it was a glich or something.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   


Yay!!!!

Ding Dong the Glitch is Gone!!!



This has, honestly, made my morning!!!

Welcome back!!



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Diseria and orangetom,

I enjoyed your discussion on philosophy. One of the core beliefs of Aikido is non-confrontation. It is a martial art that can be escalated or de-escalated to match the threat. For example, if a drunk tries to attack you and you hit him, all he remembers is that you hit him. He may not even remember that he was the aggressor. His focus is on you as the attacker. But if you utilize a simple Aikido move, you have moved out of his way and caused him to fall. Now his focus is on his fall and not on you. He may be embarrassed or feel foolish. He may even remember that he tried to hit you and fell. But his focus is not on you. This is my philosophy on self-defense. Self-defense must be escalated or de-escalated to match the threat.

When do we have the right to take the life of another person? Do we have to walk the fence between action and inaction or do we spend time on one side or the other? Can we marry our philosophy with action or do we only consider the philosophy?

We all have a right to not be killed. When we act as the aggressor and try to kill another person, we give up that right. If you are the intended victim, you not only have the right to keep yourself from being killed, you have the right to take the other person’s life if that is the only way to prevent your death. The only way to marry the philosophy with the action is to be non-aggressive. The fence separates action from inaction. Under normal situations, we walk along the inaction side of the fence. We are non-aggressive as we live our day-to-day life. But in extreme situations, when we are under attack, we must cross to the other side of the fence and to the action side.

As the victim, your intent is not necessarily to kill the aggressor, but to protect your life. This is the principle of double effect as introduced by Thomas Aquinas. How does this philosophy translate to sit x? In sit x, you will be at war. It will be up to you to determine who the enemy is. In warfare, it is not considered pre-emptive to kill the enemy before he is aware of your presence, it is considered self-defence.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   

In sit x, you will be at war. It will be up to you to determine who the enemy is. In warfare, it is not considered pre-emptive to kill the enemy before he is aware of your presence, it is considered self-defence.


But, Dark Elf, doesn't that completely fly in the face of non-aggression?

Why is there a sudden flip-flop?

We go from only defending, to offensively-defending? That doesn't seem right... (Granted, that's how, nationally speaking, we're handling matters... and I disagree with that as well.)


However, Aquinas observes, the permissibility of self-defense is not unconditional: “And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore, if a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful, whereas, if he repel force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.”
(taken from 'Double-Effect', linked in previous post) (emphasis mine)

Why doesn't pre-emptive striking count as 'more than necessary violence'?



If, for example, it was decided that all people wearing yellow shirts were our enemies, and that they would kill us on sight (based on past experience and evidence), I might have an easier time of heeding your words. There has to be a reason...

But, then it becomes too easy to become trigger-happy. -- And that, point blank, flies in the face of non-aggression.


Yet, even Aquinas disagrees with the idea of pre-emptive strikes:

To kill a person whom you know to be plotting to kill you would be impermissible because it would be a case of intentional killing; however, to strike in self-defense against an aggressor is permissible, even if one foresees that the blow by which one defends oneself will be fatal.
(from 'Double-Effect')


How do you reconcile that?

[edit on 28-1-2007 by Diseria]

[edit on 28-1-2007 by Diseria]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Ever read the Talmud?? Non Jews have thier Talmuds too..even Christians. YOu just have to know what it is ...not what it appears to be.

Good to see you back DArk Elf.

Thanks to all.

Working 12 hours shifts for a long while now. I will be in and out sporadically ...no set hours.

Orangetom



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   
WELCOME BACK! Darkelf. Good to see you again and to have you sharing your sagacious insights on this thread.
It is lawful to fight someone even to the death in defense of another (say, your child, spouse, total stranger getting beat up on the street). It's a tricky legal situation, though, and the prosecutor will argue that the aggressor would have stopped being aggressive if they knew you were going to kill them for their actions. The dead aggressor is conveniently not around to argue that, no, they would have kept on being a stoned-out-of-their-mind killer no matter what. In defense of another you can't say, "I feared for my life" (because you were not the one in danger). Unless it's some group hostage situation, someone tries to be a hero, starts getting pummelled and you jump in. Then you might argue that you feared for your life, saw the aggressors hostility and violence, feared you were next and "defended yourself".
You are legally allowed to only use as much force as is necessary to stop the aggressive behavior. That may include killing them but before you call the cops and tell them to "get this bleeding bozo off my carpet", you need to think of exactly how LITTLE you are actually going to say to them. Call your lawyer while you're waiting for the cops to show up and only tell the cops that you've retained counsel and are exercising your right to remain silent. Don't answer even one of their questions.
In situation x, there probably won't be much need to worry about legal ramifications anyway. The barbarian on the street isn't going to report you for shooting at them for trying to break into your house. If someone's trying to break into your house, wait til they're all the way in before shooting (at) them.
In a declared war, preemptive killing is not considered murder but self-defense because the enemy has already stated their intent to kill you and are actively seeking you out. If you see them before they see you, you may kill them in self defense because you already know that when they do see you, they WILL kill you. If you feel that you will forever be haunted by the taking of another human life, use 223 ammo. lol. It was designed to wound, rather than kill (although a well-placed shot is still lethal) in order to take more soldiers off the battlefield in caring for their wounded.
Armed is a state of mind and in a crisis situation your training and character kick in long before your moral conscience does. Although character is a part of moral conscience, it is reflexive, ingrained; whereas conscience requires a little time to ponder all aspects of a particular situation before deciding the correct course of action. You could be bleeding to death before your conscience, having weighed the situation, deemed it was moral and proper to fight to the death. IMHO, all behavior that is "anti-life" deserves and requires extinguishing. It is not murder to cut out a cancerous growth that is killing you. It is life-affirming.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
WELCOME BACK! Darkelf. Good to see you again and to have you sharing your sagacious insights on this thread.

Dont swear at her,she may leave of her own accord next time.


It is lawful to fight someone even to the death in defense of another (say, your child, spouse, total stranger getting beat up on the street). It's a tricky legal situation.

Let me just state again,the intelligent thought out conversations by those mainly participating in this thread is awesome,well done.

AS far as the quote whitewave i believe your correct,however in situation X it may possibly be a type of situation where fear of laws and nobody here to implement them exists.

It would come down to what you believe to be right.

Would you commit murder to defend yourself,family or anyone else for that matter.

I`m not sure if i personally would,though i know i will retaliate or stop someone from harming those of no threat to someone else.

I can say that because even when i was single i could take a hit without retaliation but when i sensed the perpetrator will not stop until i was dead i wiped the floor with them.

Now i have responsibilities now i defend more so.

If say for instance in situation X a female finds herself in a dire situation i recommend using your femininity to your advantage (without going into detail),you will need to do him harm much more so than kicking in the gonads,as that will only buy you a minute or so to escape.

Once he has gained his breathe back i can assure you your in for a bad day.

You will need to incapacitate him,eg stab him,shoot him etc this need not be a fatal wound,but may end up being one,that need not be your concern your safety is.

If you were to find yourself in a group of males situation,grin and bear it if you can and hope you survive to later escape.

In those times of what ever situation X is and the many varying degrees in which it can be,everyone will have to evaluate the situation on what they deem appropriate action or measures.

For examples sake, if it were any of you guys here,in my mind your life is worth more than a scum bags,i would stop them and if that resulted in someone eventually dying,i will fully expect to take my judgment from God for that.





top topics
 
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join