Comments by "Jim Taylor" (@jimtaylor294) on "Is Communism Moral? | 5 Minute Video" video.

@0xredrumx078 I agree; though whether murder (in the singular sense) is evil or not is a matter of context. If in self defence or defending a 3rd party: justifiable If for any other reason: evil I know not of any context where mass murder by an individual could be deemed self defence, but in the singular I think there are objective standards for what is or isn't evil.
1
@ladymacbethofmtensk896 Great point on the hypocrisy of vegetablists. Plants feel pain after all, and are alive as any animal. Such is domestication that humans breed animals for food, that eat what we cannot eat (grasses, et al), and plants too, to provide the rest of a balanced diet. If the plant munchers really believed any of their idolatry; they'd eat nothing at all, and starve for the sake of their ideology. It's also a simple fact that any "vegetarian" or "vegan" is easily cured of their eating disorder: put one in a locked room without any sustinance for days... and then introduce a fluffy bunny... surrvival instinct will have them scoffing flopsy in no time XD. (certainly a rather cruel example; but nature is seldom otherwise, a fact they have forgotten / chosen to ignore)
1
@0xredrumx078 I partially disagree. Situations don't tend to afford the one needing to resort to self defence the luxury of choosing whether to kill someone or not. If someone comes at you with visible intent to harm, holding back would only put yourself in avoidable peril. Self Defence IMC includes intentional use of force evidently likely to kill the attacker, as indeed the Armed Response component of any Police Force have to do, for the sake of their own safety and that of the public. This is especially the case when you consider the number of ways an attacker can kill or irreparably maim you (&/or others), even with their bare hands.
1
@0xredrumx078 You don't define which person is which. If the one in need of self-defence is at home... where are they going to run to?. If the assailant [actual or by visible intent about to be] is afforded a chance to run away or otherwise desist... and doesn't, then they remain an existential threat to said defending party, thus the latter is still in need of using all available force to ensure their survival. After all: If someone comes at you with a knife and visible bloodlust... and all you have to hand is a Gun; are you seriously not going to shoot them?. Same question if someone with a gun, trying to protect another person in immediate peril from the same threat. If yes to both; then you shoot to Kill the aggressor , as to do so will best guarantee your personal survival / that of those you're trying to protect. (after all real life tends not to give you the luxury of aiming to maim, and only lowers your chance of stopping the attacker, thus reducing your odds of surrvival) Similar situation if the defender only has a cutting/stabbing implement or a bludgeon to hand. Personally: I wouldn't hesitate. I wouldn't by any measure enjoy taking such an action, but would do so in order to end an immediate threat to my own / the 3rd party's continued existence.
1
@0xredrumx078 Technically intent doesn't = action, and no court would convict a person of premeditated murder of an intruder in their own home... as that's an obvious contradiction. (by definition you cannot have preceding intent to kill someone if their very presence in such a situation is unexpected, especially if they are someone unknown to you) I would agree however that if the aggressor does not heed an opportunity to stand down or flee, and instead chooses to respond to a given ultimatum - be it verbal or with body language - with trying to rush the defender, then the latter has right of self-defence, by the means aforementioned.
1
@0xredrumx078 True; though I wasn't suggesting living the So I started Blasting meme XD. I think I made it pretty clear that the intruder / aggressor should be challenged first; with a clear statement - be it verbal &/or with body language - that they will face lethal force if they make any attempt to cause harm, stated alongwith any other action they are being lawfully demanded to take by the defending person. After all: even armed response units are trained to challenge someone with a weapon before engaging; unless already fired at / otherwise in imminent peril or protecting someone else who is.
1