Total posts: 4,276
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That's more general than self-defense, it's the right to liberty.
Self-defense is derived from from the right to liberty.
He wouldn't be dead if the aggressor didn't violate rights.
The aggressor directly violated your rights but didn't directly violate his. Rights violation implies harm of some kind. The guy wasn't harmed until you retaliated. Your choice to retaliate affects whether the third party lives or dies and directly harms them.
If the aggressor turned and shot the person next to them, that would be violating their rights even further. So there is still room to violate that person's right by throwing a javelin, which is what you are doing.
chain of last necessary cause
Retaliation isn't necessary, though, it's a choice.
You're not saying "X is similar to Y in this way so it must be similar in all ways" right?
Again, self-defense is part of the right to liberty, so the same rules apply.
Aggressors already violated rights and thus any 'rights' they may have are practical mechanisms to avoid injustice and rapidly end ongoing threats to the rights of anyone.
Hence, empty field is basically the same as a field with an aggressor, from perspective of right to liberty. Again, you don't have an obligation to defend yourself, it's just allowed like anything else unless it harms a third party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I am asserting a right to not be in a battlefield where collateral damage is a major risk.
Why does the guy lose his right to be in the battlefield because the person next to him throws a javelin? You're violating that person's liberty by killing them because he wouldn't be dead without you taking action.
Right to self-defense is basically "you have the right to do anything unless it harms anyone unless that person is an aggressor." From that perspective, an empty field is equivalent to a field with an aggressor in it. Adding an innocent person to that field has the same effect in each case of causing an NAP violation if you throw the javelin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
As for this field non-sense, the general formulation is you have a right to do anything you want so long as it doesn't violate the liberty of others (other moral actors, the civilized). Since getting murdered is a violating of liberty, throwing a javelin at an empty field is morally distinct from throwing a javelin at a field containing an innocent person.
Okay, so you have the right to self-defense as long as it doesn't violate the liberty of third parties. I think you're applying a different standard to this javelin case than you were before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Babies are always a good emotional argument.
It's a practical argument. The babies Israel bombs are not willing assistants or members of Hamas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"Who loses the advantage if the (supposed) innocent party could not have their rights violated in any way because an omniscient omnipotent super-intelligence which is absolutely and eternally tasked with the sole goal of enforcing this rule by whatever means are most elegant and cunning prevents said violation of rights."Double infinity + 1, I win.
The opponent still loses their advantage, because you would somehow be able to get the car without harming the person. And the car isn't their property in this scenario. Shooting the person is a needed to access the car, just like collateral damage is inevitable with bombing the enemy location. In either case it would be convenient for you if the other person didn't exist and had never rented your car or been near the terrorist base.
Even if the distinction didn't exist, it's far too slight to actually impact what the definition of self-defense is. Some strategies for self-defense inevitably involve other things. Just as I have a prima facie right to self-defense, I have a prima facie right to throw a javelin at an empty field, right? If an innocent person occupies that field, and I throw a javelin and kill them, am I just exercising my right? Or have I overstepped the bounds of that right?
if everyone else in the world lined up in front of your attacker to prevent your counterattack, they all forfeited their lives.
I don't think most collateral damage involve people intentionally putting themselves near the terrorists. With children and wounded people in hospitals, it's a given that they don't really have a say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Tbh, your stance sounds a bit like the doctrine of double effect, which is one route to justifying self-defense but tends to have more limitations on it than other justifications. One formulation argues that "the good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect," so I think on most interpretations it would still be subject to a utilitarian calculus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Then it's your car that you own and rented to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
GOT YOU!If you mean to steal a rented car then the victim is the rental company
You also shot them though to get the car. They're still a victim and shooting them isn't self-defense.
your guy needed a car to catch the enemy
Yeah but you don't need them. I'm talking about them action of shooting the person to get to the car. That specific killing isn't self-defense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Who loses the advantage if the (supposed) innocent party and all their property
Okay, then they're renting the car. Similarly to Palestinians in hospitals using the hospital but not owning it. It's really not that different, if that person never existed, you would have access to the car/be able to bomb the hospital without killing civilians.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"all else equal"
It's a thought experiment and not that big a stretch. Let's say you would have bought the car if the other person hadn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
This tangentially relates to the 2A debate; what proponents are claiming isn't so much an inalienable human right to discharge a metal slug through a rifled tube and into the air via a chemical propellant, but rather that the right to gun ownership is an extension of the right to self-defense.
That's a bit different, since I'd say everyone has a prima facie right to discharge a metal slug through a rifled tube, the argument there is that violating this right could cost someone's life if they needed to do it for self defense. Hence the barrier for the government being justified in infringing on this right becomes a bit higher (though maybe not impossible to clear).
The idea of stealing some random third person's car to offensively defend yourself sounds ridiculous, but that's mainly because we live in an environment where this scenario would never come up. For that matter, the idea of pursuing to defend one's self sounds ridiculous since one could readily take refuge in the arms of the law and let them handle it.
I'm not saying it's ridiculous, just that it isn't itself self-defense. People have the right to visit their grandparents, for example, but I don't think stealing someone else's car is covered by that right. A government that bans stealing isn't violating your right to visit people. A government that bans bank robberies isn't violating your right to buy things, etc. How is self-defense different?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Obviously, those were absurd examples, but you seem to have accepted them. How does serial killing, bank robbing, and raping prevent a repeat of history?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
After the Holocaust with 6 million dead Jews. Everything the Jews do is done in self defence to prevent a repeat of history.
Everything? Are Jewish serial killers, bank robbers, and rapists all just practicing self-defense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Apply the diagnostic. (Who loses the advantage if the (supposed) innocent party did not exist?)
If the innocent party didn't exist, maybe I would have bought the car instead. Then I'd have one to spare and I could go after the aggressor. The innocent party is inconvenient to me, but still not an aggressor. (They bought a car before me.) I think this is analogous enough to fit the diagnostic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Hamas are Palestinians, Palestinians are Hamas, and there is no separation of friend and foe.
I don't think you can hold babies responsible for what Hamas does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No it isn't, because it wasn't a choice of the aggressor to potentially gain advantage by your restraint.
Ok, let's say the aggressor stole my car. That's restraining me (in this hypothetical) to have to pursue them some other way.
Without the (supposed) innocent in gaza, the IDF would be bolder, stronger, able to use far more effective weapons and risk far fewer of their soldiers all for a lower costs.
Without the guy who owns the car in his car, I would have a free car and be able to pursue the enemy.
If you kill ten people trying to pitstop the enemy
Collateral damage also includes children in hospitals. Those aren't willing accomplices.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If it is impossible to shoot an aggressor without embezzling money by the choice of the aggressor, it is.
Okay, so then what if I steal a car to pursue my enemy? What if I shoot the car owner to steal their car? What if I shoot ten people to steal the car? Is all of that self-defense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
@ADreamOfLiberty
Suppose that knowing your enemy values the lives of babies, you take babies hostage and then demand something crazy such as half of your enemies committing suicide (morally the smallest demand is equivalent to the largest demand except in the calculation of proportionality of punishment).1.) Your enemies refuse and you kill the babies, perhaps they're your own babies. Did the enemy kill the babies?2.) Now suppose you put a baby in the back seat of every bomber, fighter, and warship? Who killed the babies in that case?
In #1, the enemy didn't kill the babies, they just refused to save them. I'd say that's a significant difference. In #2, if the enemy knew there were babies in the warships and bombed them anyway, then they killed the babies and everyone else on the ship. That's not even a moral judgment, just what killing entails. There are utilitarian routes to arguing bombing the ship is justified, but I don't think "self-defense" applies to killing the babies. Killing the enemies on the warship is self-defense, but you can do multiple things at once. I can shoot an aggressor while embezzling money, but embezzling money isn't self-defense, just another thing I was doing at the same time.
If it's necessary for self-defense of your future self to currently and actively pursue your foe, then the right to self-defense entails a right to pursue your foe wherever he flees or hides.
I think I'd dispute that every intermediate step to achieve self-defense is itself self-defense. What if I steal a car to pursue my enemy? What if I shoot the car owner to steal their car? Is all of that self-defense?
In case #5 that you described, where the third party physically can't remove themselves, I think killing them definitely isn't self-defense, even if there are other routes to argue killing them is justified. The self-defense distinction is important because utilitarian justifications usually require a higher bar to be justified than self-defense. Self-defense is basically a justification in and of itself, but utilitarianism requires that the good of an action outweighs the bad, and a lot of civilian warfare likely doesn't meet that bar. Also requires that you believe the ends justify the means, which isn't universally accepted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
If the court determines there was no other way to save your life than to shoot through 3 people than you are in the clear.
That's not a defense in every jurisdiction, and if it was, it would be duress, not self-defense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
The reason Ashley Babbit was considered a self defense kill is because the crowd posed a threat and the courts have ruled that if a crowd or group poses a threat you can use lethal force on individuals in the crowd who may not alone be a threat to your life.
Then she personally was posing a threat by being a part of the crowd and contributing to the dangerous behavior. They can't shoot a random person caught up in the crowd.
It wouldn't make aiming through them to kill somebody who poses an immediate threat not part of the act of self defense.
Killing the threat is self-defense, killing the noncombatant isn't.
For example if somebody is in your way and you through them to the ground and hurt them so they get out of your line of site so you can kill a terrorist.
Some courts might, but only because throwing someone to the ground is barely anything compared to death and they might overlook it. Practically, though, not every step before self-defense is itself self-defense. You can kill three people if they are all attacking you, but if you kill three bystanders to get a line of sight to someone threatening you, you can be charged for their deaths.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Israel does far more to avoid killing non combatants than Hamas
Sure, but that's a pretty low bar. Hamas isn't defending themselves either by killing noncombatants.
you can kill non combatants and it be considered self defense in some situations. For example a crowd if it is dangerous can be considered a single entity
A crowd isn't a single entity though, nor is a country. Individuals aren't responsible for what other members of their country do. Ashley Babbit was shot for trespassing, not just being part of a crowd.
Or they hide out in schools and hospitals so any attacks on them kill civilians for propaganda purposes or because they know they are the bad guys and are taking advantage of Israel good nature and reluctance to kill civilians. A reluctance they don't share.
I know this has happened at least some times (not clear how often), but let's say they do hide behind civilians in every single case. Even if that's a justification for civilian casualties (and I don't buy that it always is), it doesn't make killing non-aggressors self-defense. The civilians aren't the ones making the terrorists hide behind them. The right to self-defense is just the right to kill aggressors, not every intermediate step that is done to achieve that. You can be threatened into killing a third-party, but unless the third party is also threatening you, killing them is not self-defense.
war is not usually about self defense but defending national interests from existential threats
Which in this case makes more sense as a line of reasoning than self-defense, but it's not as politically palatable to say the ends justify the means.
Created:
Posted in:
In most cases when self-defense is discussed, it refers to killing or otherwise harming someone attacking you. Rarely is it applied to situations where people who don't pose a threat are harmed to protect oneself. For example, harvesting someone's kidneys without their consent to save yourself is not self-defense, presuming they have nothing to do with your own kidneys failing. Cops could arrest the family members of criminals to reduce crime rates, but arresting those family members wouldn't be self-defense.
Much is said about Israel's right to defend itself whenever civilian casualties are brought up. And of course the same argument is brought up for other countries whose attacks have high casualty rates. But if we've learned anything from the previous two examples, it's that self-defense only implies the right to kill the person attacking you, not the right to attack anyone at all. So while there might be potential arguments to justify attacks killing noncombatants, I find it hard to buy that self-defense is one of them. If an attack kills five terrorists and five noncombatants, you can argue self-defense to justify killing the terrorists, but not so much the five noncombatants.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
why it is such a big issue for so many people, can anybody explain?
Well, it's an issue for people with gender dysphoria, which isn't all transgender people but a significant number of them. No one with gender dysphoria seems to enjoy having it. Even among those who transition, dysphoria doesn't totally go away. Which indicates to me that we probably don't understand as much about it as we should.
If asking "How do trans people feel about terms that distinguish sex?" is somehow triggering to people, I don't know how any progress is going to get made understanding this issue. Don't they communicate their preferences, like, all the time?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It is the only non-transient cause.
Sure, but it's pretty useful to measure short term price changes too. Also measuring price changes wouldn't necessarily tell you just the effects of the money supply, since there could be short term factors like tariffs affecting the current price.
Government spending is always dead weight.
Public goods aren't always deadweight. It's good to have roads and schools.
It is justice and prosperity that matters most.
Predictability helps achieve prosperity. Companies like to know how many goods they need to produce and how to price them. Consumers like knowing how much to save and invest.
Why is 2% more predictable than 0%?
Well, either way would probably involve govt intervention but could be predictable. 2% is better because it's hard to control inflation exactly and it acts as a buffer against deflation. Deflation is likely worse for a number of reasons, one being that sticky wages can easily cause unemployment during a downturn.
Anything that can be charted on the supply demand curve is just moving weight around.
But those short term price increases matter to consumers, and they're what's directly measured by looking at the price of goods. Not that the short term is the only thing that matters, it's just a useful thing to measure.
Either you meant "a general increase in prices" which would be an imprecise definition of inflation
Prices don't always rise at the same rate, so the inflation rate is based on the overall trend.
What is the term for the increase in general prices due to an excess increase in money supply?
Increase in general prices is inflation regardless of the cause.
Reading as "the money supply is the main cause of general increases in all prices"What else can cause general (permanent) increase in all prices?
I agree that it's the main cause, just not the only cause in the short term. Inflation rates are measured over short periods, you have to account somewhat for short term trends.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That's like saying pressure is often measured by the gravity force of a liquid metal, so there was some utility in using a definition corresponding to what was being measured.Oh wait, they kinda do, mm of mercury.
The price of goods is the direct effect on the customer. They don't care about the money supply otherwise.
Uniformly rising prices is the effect, inflating money supply is the cause.
It's one cause, not the only one.
They are definitely taxes and thus theft, not directly on the consumer (almost none of which have the first clue about importing)
The taxes are paid by buyers. Not really relevant which party pays the tax, but much of the incidence of the tax falls on consumers.
Define efficiency in this context.
Lack of deadweight loss or negative changes in consumer behavior.
Yet dips are correlated with inflation.
Hyperinflation, sure. So is deflation. Controlled, 2% inflation is fine, it's predictability that matters most.
They don't always make the price go up either. They can change behavior and thus shift the supply/demand curve drastically which means there are no absolute predictions, just a few absolute facts
Decreased supply/taxes increase prices. Even if there's some rare exception, we're talking about if they can contribute to price increases.
Yes it would, it's the increase in the cost of goods CAUSED by the excess increase in the money supply.
That's one cause, probably the main cause, but not always the only cause.
The problem is the equivocation of inflation with any increase in prices whatsoever
That's not a problem if that's the definition we use now. People know that it's referring to a change in prices, even if that change might be temporary.
In other words this is one of the rare instances where people's shallow understanding is actually exactly right, they are calling "all the prices are going up" "inflation" and that is exactly what it is even if they don't generally understand why.
So the definition isn't misleading.
It's not open taxation, it's not war, it's not disease; it's money printing.
Sometimes it's all four.
Then what is the new term for inflation?
The new term for what you call inflation? An increase in the money supply. The term for prices going up? Inflation.
Is this new term on the lips of every citizen when they shake their heads at the totals in stores? If the answer is "no" that would mean the subversion has succeeded because that IS the cause of that bottom number going up and up and up.
The money supply is the main cause of inflation but not the only supply. If anything, we understand this better now. People used inflation to mean "prices going up" since forever, their limited understanding of why that is hasn't changed.
Created:
For those reading this in the future: WyIted changed his profile picture to Mao Zedong
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
because CPI wasn't a redefinition of a "useful concept, one which if forgotten would leave people unable to understand critical dynamics of fiat currency systems".
Again, the economic understanding of fiat currency hasn't been lost. Inflation was commonly measured as the rise in prices, so there was some utility in using a definition corresponding to what was being measured. If anything, this is less misleading, since the old definition could lead people to assume that something other than the price of goods was being measured.
subvert thousands of years of cultural baggage, legal implications, and social privileges
I know it's not really the topic, but aren't the "cultural baggage and social privileges" the basis for gender theory (i.e. the "social role" view)? I mean, I agree that the newer definition of "woman" is not very consistently defined, but it appeals to the "cultural baggage" that you're mentioning. If you want a definition for woman based strictly on biological sex, then none of that matters.
That's why everything is getting better. <- sarcasm
Again, not really the topic, but living standards are generally going up in the long term. The stock market is crashing now, but overall it tends to go up.
I claim countries die from hyperinflation. Which is a particular form of government theft.After a variant of a disease is named, there is no honest reason to change the name.
Are tariffs not government theft too then? It's a direct tax on consumers that makes them have to pay more. A particularly inefficient form of theft, too, because of how much deadweight loss it incurs.
Taxation and direct destruction of the means of production can increase some prices, but in that case the price of labor goes down until a critical point after which the black market becomes the only means of survival and which prices mean nothing.
Tariffs don't always make the price of labor go down. And even if they did, tariffs don't always force huge black markets. They don't tend to be this broad anyway.
it doesn't matter if the new definition is interesting, all that matters is that there was no good reason to use that word, only subversive reasons.
It's not misleading, though. It would be misleading if we said inflation was the cost of goods but only measured the money supply. Or if we said it was the money supply but measured the cost of goods (what happened with the old definition). Since what inflation is called and what is being measured are the same thing, it's not misleading.
To attempt to redefine inflation after the people's mind was made up is pure sophistry.
The understanding that price increases are strongly related to the money supply (and to a lesser extent, other factors) hasn't changed. Terms used for different things have adjusted, but that's like saying people who speak English have a different understanding of economics than people who speak Spanish.
an attack on conceptual clarity
The definition is clear and consistent with what is being measured. It's not a contradictory or confusing concept. People aren't incapable of understanding the most common definition any more than they're incapable of understanding what "bully" means.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
by that means attempt no redefinition
The definition has already changed. Changing it back requires more hassle. You don't object to the term "CPI," so why object to the term inflation? The Federal Reserve tries to hit a 2% target for inflation, and the current definition is most useful for that end.
I think the average understanding was much better, due in large part to people describing themselves as "economists" being significantly more honest on average.
Economics has advanced since the 60s, in part due to having more data to work with.
When we see countries dying of hyperinflation it is never because of the other transient and insignificant factors that could affect CPI. It hasn't been tariffs, or covid, or ukraine that moved the CPI of the western world this past decade.
Well, according to your definition no, but that's not really saying anything because your definition doesn't take anything in to account except the money supply. And I don't think I claimed anyone was "dying of hyperinflation," just that prices were generally going up. Tariffs and covid and wars can increase prices.
The sole purpose of such a redefinition is to decouple the objective evil with the already identified cause of the evil.
Except wars and tariffs and sickness have identifiable negative effects on the economy, even if they aren't the main source of price increases. If anything, an increase in the money supply is the most tolerable cause for price increases since it's possible for wages to keep up and avoids deflation.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
A useful definition of a useful concept
The consumer price index is a useful thing to measure, though. It's more directly applicable to buyers.
one which if forgotten would leave people unable to understand critical dynamics of fiat currency systems.
You can still use the term "money supply," which economists commonly do, to describe the concept you're talking about. They're not denying that monetary causes exist. And it's not like people understood fiat currency systems any better in 1960.
The original definition
Not always the more useful one. "Nice" used to mean foolish, for example. "Bully" used to mean sweetheart. Now they mean other things, so it's more useful to use their new definitions.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If your sources for that definition are a radio personality and a dictionary from 1960, it's probably the less common definition.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"An increase in prices" is the most common definition of inflation (and pretty much the only one that I can find). Here are the first five results when I google "what is inflation?"
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Tariffs do not cause inflation.
If you define inflation as an increase in prices, tariffs can cause inflation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
savant softed Wournos
Actually I didn't, I just made up some stuff and figured there was probably a serial killer who fit the criteria. I figured there would be fewer female serial killers, making it easier to fake claim.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Politics is half branding
Well, that might not be a good thing.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Obama esque style
It takes a lot of charisma to rattle off a bunch of cliches and sound like you're saying something.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If it's not objective there is nothing to debate.
I mean I'd like to hear one person who feels the way I described give some insight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
He hasn’t kept the game moving
I think you meant to say "he has," but he hasn't. He's stalled. Not the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
name 5 things you have done
I've given reads on
1. Bullish
2. Casey
3. Austin
4. WyIted
5. That2User
Also pushed WyIted for a claim and forced him to reveal his character. But I don't have 2 votes like you. As they say, with great power comes great responsibility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
You see I didn't even have time to verify the information I got from chat GPT last game and it got me caught.
So you're avoiding posting...so you don't get caught as scum like you were before? Sounds about right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I have been agreeing with whiteflame moves a lot and also voting how he votes
Buddying does not help your case. You're usually more proactive than this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
@AustinL0926
@WyIted
Why exactly would I give any claim to somebody who is the most likely lynch, particularly when that's the only vote I have on me?
Yes, rather convenient for you that town found someone to lynch without you having to contribute. Do you have no reads? No opinions? You're just fine lynching any player who isn't you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
Time is limited. How do you read WyIted?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
We don’t have time. It’s you or That2 as of right now
We do have time, and I don't want town to fumble this just because we got anxious. We still have 12 hours. You have 2 votes, don't be lazy.
you’re doing the exact same thing you’re accusing Wylted of doing
No. WyIted talked about things irrelevant to finding scum. Me accusing WyIted is directed at finding scum. Not the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
i have a gut town read because in the last game where Wylted and I flopped as scum he was really pissed at Luna for being a theme-aholic and trying to meta analyze every theme and I think as a way of venting he might just be doing the same thing here which makes me he's a town lean
I have a hard time seeing what he's posted as theme analysis...has he posted anything you would classify as scum hunting?
Created: