Argument with my younger brother (long post).

This is a discussion on Argument with my younger brother (long post). within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Well I was having another argument with my brother (They seem to be happening more lately) and he brought up this scenario. If you had ...

Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Argument with my younger brother (long post).

  1. #1
    Member Array Bryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    334

    Argument with my younger brother (long post).

    Well I was having another argument with my brother (They seem to be happening more lately) and he brought up this scenario.

    If you had to shoot someone and knew it was wrong could you?

    This wasn't about 2A or self defence, He was trying to point out that we really don't know anything 100%.
    My position was I have to assume I'm right and act on the information I'm given.
    If someone proves with their argument (to me) that I'm wrong i will change my thinking.
    He thinks that since I have to act like I know what I'm talking about until someone makes a valid point to me that I'm Overconfident.
    To him anything is possible (we just choose not to see all the possibilities).
    So the answer to the question (even with its contradiction of "had to" and could you if it was "wrong") (I thought) was yes or no.

    Apparently he had multiple answers like is your life worth more than his? or Could you be making a mistake about his intentions, or Etc..
    His arguments are for when you judge you know more about a situation then say some one you don't know.
    So since you don't know everything then you should never make any authoritative statements.

    I'm just trying to put a definition on his philosophy. Could His be Abstract Rationality and mine Pragmatic Objectivism?
    Anyway it all boils down to me insisting that I have to act on what I know and He that you should assume that you really can't know anything.
    I'm just having a tough time with this abstract thinking.
    It seems to be more of a generation gap as I'm seeing more young people with this type of philosophy.
    Is this part of Object oriented education?
    -Diplomacy: The art of saying nice dogie until you can find a rock.
    -The truth is a three edged sword.
    -Your brain is your primary weapon everything else is just a tool.
    -When the only tool you have is a hammer then everything starts to look like a nail.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array sailormnop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Tidewater, VA, USA
    Posts
    292

    Rational? More like unreasoning rationalization...

    This is the anti-life, anti-success, anti-achievement mentality that is being taught in schools today. It is basically the end result of teaching the kids that every answer is right, no answer is wrong, and you should never judge or criticize, because everyone's point of view is just as valid as anyone else's. If you extend this logic to everything in life, you will never make any decision and never do anything, because you can't absolutely for sure know anything! (My roommate at Virginia Tech was a philosophy major. 20 years later - still waaayy left. Go figure.)

    If Joe the crackhead feels he should kill you for the $50 in your pocket so he can get another hit, maybe he's right. Therefore, it is wrong to defend yourself - because he might be right.

    Of course, any rational, reasonable person knows this is hogwash! You own yourself and your life and no other human being has a right to take it away or anything that you bought with the currency for which you traded a part of your life.

    The fact is that life requires action, and you have to choose your actions based on something. You have no choice but to go on what you know. You have to educate yourself, prepare yourself, and then TRUST yourself. You must believe that you are capable of perceiving the world around you as it really is and making valid decisions based on that.

    As an educated carry permit holder, at least you have taken the time to select rational criteria for making those life-and-death decisions in advance, before the heat of the moment makes it impossible. In a situation where inaction could well lead to death or grave injury (for you or a loved one), you are equipped to take action.

    Oh yeah - Obviously, if you know it's wrong, then you have to NOT shoot someone. If it's truly in defense of your life, etc., etc., then it's not wrong! I see nothing rational about that bit of illogic.

    I'm not sure how well I expressed my point, but I have to go. Perhaps I'll revisit this later. Anyway, good luck with your bro!
    Check out the Free State Project

    How does the economy really work? Mises Institute

    Laissez Faire Books offers an extensive collection of books on liberty, free markets, philosophy, economics, politics and history.

  4. #3
    Member Array bones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    380
    I no longer have "arguments" with my two brothers. We gave that up a good 30 - 35 years ago. We three have found that with me as professional soldier, them as civilian explosives experts, and all three of us experts with guns, arguments are unessessary and totally unfruitful. We all have our point of view of life and leave it at that.
    We do however still have some GREAT discussions. We get together fairly often.
    "There is no such thing as too much ammo. Unless you're swimming!"

  5. #4
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,482
    is your life worth more than his
    All life is potentially of equal value.............

    UNTIL - one individual decides that he/she is going to possibly take yours in the commision of an illegal act (or act of warfare) - or simply plans to commit the act of murder. You are under lethal threat.

    It is less a case of my life value vs his - more a case of he has no right to endanger or take my life, ergo, I have every right to possibly take his/hers in the defence of self. He/she, having made the decision to possibly take my life, rescinds any right to safety from incoming defensive measures.

    Per the old school saying - ''he/she started it''!!
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  6. #5
    Member Array Bryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    334
    Yea the heart of the mater is when I truph some of my experience (I have because I'm older) that he has admittedly not had. He always goes to "just be cause I haven't been in that situation doesn't mean I don't really know about it". My reply is that is true (to a certain extent) but if you actually "experience" something and "do it" instead of "thinking" or "reading" then you know you know.

    Admittedly I'm Liberal on some Issues and Conservative on others. But I always come back to what dose it really mean(dose the argument add up). That is the only way to sort out all of the lies and truths on TV and in politics. A lot of these things are my opinion but are based on my personal experience and under standing.

    Now someone might know something I don't so I will give them the benefit of the doubt and do my own research if they bring up something I haven't thought of. I will not have a mind open enough that I agree with everyone all the time. Basically keep an open mind but also stand your ground when your right.

    BTW he is religious so I can't see the extremely Liberal thought process he currently has. Not that its bad but it seems contradictory to right and wrong lessons the religion has. Also I keep telling him to get a job so he can get some real life experience. He is and has been a student so its no big deal. Its just experience and study are two different things and he might see what I'm talking about when goes through some real life issues.
    -Diplomacy: The art of saying nice dogie until you can find a rock.
    -The truth is a three edged sword.
    -Your brain is your primary weapon everything else is just a tool.
    -When the only tool you have is a hammer then everything starts to look like a nail.

  7. #6
    VIP Member
    Array Miggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Miami-Dade, FL
    Posts
    6,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    Well I was having another argument with my brother (They seem to be happening more lately) and he brought up this scenario.

    If you had to shoot someone and knew it was wrong could you?

    This wasn't about 2A or self defence, He was trying to point out that we really don't know anything 100%
    When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher's knife and a ****-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross.
    Harry Callahan
    You have to make the shot when fire is smoking, people are screaming, dogs are barking, kids are crying and sirens are coming.
    Randy Cain.

    Ego will kill you. Leave it at home.
    Signed: Me!

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    If you had to shoot someone and knew it was wrong could you?
    Sure you could. You'd be a criminal, in such a case. Should you? Not unless you want to defend against a righteous and completely warranted legal attack against your freedom.

    He was trying to point out that we really don't know anything 100%.
    It's about what's known at the time. A.O.J. Does the BG have the ability (weapon) to harm you; does the BG have the actually opportunity (access) to do so; does the threat cause immediate jeopardy (death/dismemberment) to you/yours? Knowing what you know at the time is all-important. If unjustified? In such cases, you may not defend with lethal force.

    To him anything is possible (we just choose not to see all the possibilities).
    Anything is possible, if the litany of actions by criminals are any indication. One's decision to be armed and to defend against these random acts is a huge responsibility. It's rare that one knows with 100% certainty in a one-second, lightning encounter what all of the facts are. You go with the flow. If attacked, if retreat isn't possible, if clear warning is given and the attack [i]continues[/] in spite of that ... defend yourself, to the last bullet if need be. Absolutely justified. That's no mantle of righteousness against being scrutinized, but it's justified. We're speaking of lethal force. By definition it's a "solution" of last resort, when all other options have been exhausted. Now, that exhaustion can come in a one-second encounter, where a knfe-wielding assassin bum rushes you and demands your life. Or, it can be a protracted enounter where you have time and options, such as retreating or negotiation. Your debater should keep in mind that one cannot control circumstances nor dictate the possibilities. In a criminal action, it's the perp who directs the flow, at least initially. It's when options have been closed off that lethal force becomes an option.

    Apparently he had multiple answers like is your life worth more than his?
    Damn right it is. My life or a BG's? Mine, every time. GG compared to GG? I'm just another poor sod looking to get through life happily and comfortably. The moment a BG attempts to feed off my life and enrich his sad, twisted mentality in the process? My life is more valuable. Damn straight.

    Anyway it all boils down to me insisting that I have to act on what I know and He that you should assume that you really can't know anything.
    These two are truly compatible perspectives. On a continuum of knowledge, from knowing zero to knowing all, one must act. At what point do you do so? Choose, but choose well. That's about it. Unless you're the man upstairs, nothing's 100%.

    Is this part of Object oriented education?
    Yup. The object being: my survival if attacked. For me, it had better be a clear attack. I'm unwilling to harm the proverbial three-year old child in the background, the person whose actions I'm mistaking, etc. I will be damned sure of it, given the facts known at the time. And, if the attack continues after being clearly warned to desist ... I will survive the encounter if I'm able. That's it.
    Last edited by ccw9mm; October 1st, 2006 at 08:51 AM.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array SammyIamToday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,087
    Read up on Natural Law. It's the basis for our laws (or is supposed to be). Making everyone equal until someone becomes a detriment by preying on others. That sort of thing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

    That's a good place to start.

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array sgtD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,292
    A lot of the crap that your brother is spewing is based in the current moral relativism being taught in schools. ie. We can't judge the 9/11 terrorists, because in their culture what they did was noble.

    It leaves everything to interpretation of evryone and no one can be said to be right or wrong, they just have a different point of view.

    As far as I'm concerned, if someone is trying to rob me or do me harm, that person has decided that he is wiling to risk his life in this endeavor, but is betting that this will not be the case. Therefore I don't have to worry about whether or not my life is worth more than his, I need only concern myself as to making sure that he loses his bet.

    Also, my life is worth more than his to me, and vice versa, because he might well be willing to kill me to get what he wants. If I think my life is worth more than his, then I can't be wrong becuase my point of view validates my position, hence moral relativity, which is the foundation of his argument.

    As to his question, if you can't distinguish when your right, how can you distinguish if you are wrong. Neither truly exisit in the world of moral relativism, so it is really a moot subject.

    Ultimately his policy, if adopted, would lead to a policy of complete inaction. Where would that get us in life? No where.

    Having discussed this subject with several very liberal academics, the concensus seems to be to make decisions as to any action with the knowledge curently available while realizing that other information may be out there, but sometimes it is impractical to wait for it. This leads us to use the most precautionary approach possible, while acting to prevent or bring about certain outcomes. ie. dont' pull the trigger until your relatively certain of justification. This applies to not only CCW, but to all areas of debate.
    Last edited by sgtD; October 1st, 2006 at 01:35 PM. Reason: Clarification

  11. #10
    Member Array Bryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    334
    That's Exactly the phrase I was looking for moral relativism, witch should be incompatible with religious teaching. He seems to slide into this line of reasoning when he thinks I'm being overconfident. I know what I would do in a given situation as I have prepared myself as much as possible(and have experience to back it up).

    That's what is so frustrating now that I look back. He uses the moral relativism to shoot down any of my arguments he doesnt seem to like. That's what get me angry because he's not making counter points but trying to nullify everything I've said. This keeps happening even after I point out the fact the that type of argument wipes out both our views and make everything pointless.
    -Diplomacy: The art of saying nice dogie until you can find a rock.
    -The truth is a three edged sword.
    -Your brain is your primary weapon everything else is just a tool.
    -When the only tool you have is a hammer then everything starts to look like a nail.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array sgtD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,292

    Link Leaning a little left?

    Quote Originally Posted by SammyIamToday View Post
    Read up on Natural Law. It's the basis for our laws (or is supposed to be). Making everyone equal until someone becomes a detriment by preying on others. That sort of thing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

    That's a good place to start.
    This link is interesting in that when looking at it I noticed that within the link box, there was a direct link to Hobbes and another in the text, yet you had to click on John Locke in the text as there was no link to Locke in the outlined link box.

    Hmmmm. I smell left wing partisanship here. I hope I'm not going off topic too much here and promise to be brief.

    Hobbes contends that in order to form societies, individuals must relinquish rights to the government, (much more in line with left wing philosophy) yet Locke's position is that the only reason to have government is to protect individual rights and that a government must derive power by consent of the governed. Sound familiar?(Locke = Founding member of the vast right wing conspiracy?). Could this explain the missing link?

    Just a casual observation.
    When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Boy, 10, accidentally kills brother with father's gun after visit to post office
    By paramedic70002 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: March 8th, 2010, 12:09 AM
  2. When I was younger..
    By rushtoball in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: October 11th, 2008, 02:09 PM
  3. Framing the argument (Long post)
    By sgtD in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: October 17th, 2006, 04:30 PM