Hypocrisy

[Arising_uk]

None of it you seem to be saying you are an authority on something, the question was merely meant to discern why you feel you are.

My apologies as I can see how this, 'not in my experience', can easily be misinterpreted for what I actually said which was "Not that I'm speaking from experience just upon a reasonable authority I know.". So which bit of, "Not that I'm speaking from experience just upon a reasonable authority I know.", did you not understand? As I thought this would make it clear that I was speaking my opinion about an opinion that I considered a reasonable authority.

Not to upset you and cause you to go off into a shame spiral.

No shame at all.

Answer the question or don't. I care not.

What question? As your premise was false, and why ask it if you don't care?

No offense but a Lance-Corporal in the Green jackets, really that is who you consider an expert. You have a lot to learn if I might say.

That right is it? So you ignore the colour sergeant and urban combat instructor and the para and the police-officer do you? But that Green Jacket, and the other two military types, have done multiple combat tours and engaged in multiple urban combat situations and are all trained to proficiency in the use and application of firearms, so I think I'll be taking their opinions as being of reasonable authority about such things.

No one cares. Seriously no one will care, perhaps that's why the world is a bad place, no one cares, perhaps it's because some people are so gullible they will believe any self imposed Pedagogue or Demagogue, who knows...

You say this often and personally I have little care about your cares or about your pet peeves and imaginary interlocutors.

If philosophy is about logically discerning "truth" though, I think it would pay not to be suckered in by the first person with an opinion on something you run across. No offense, but waaaa?

You are hard of sight aren't you and you make it up as you go along. It was four people I know and ones with an opinion based upon experience and as such I'll be taking their word for it.
p.s.
Your use of 'sensei' brought up memories of two conversations I heard when I was 'wasting' time in the martial arts. The wisdom of two sifus in different martial arts;

Student: "Sifu, what happens if my assailant has a gun?"
Sifu1: "You're dead my friend."

Student: "Sifu, what should I do if my attacker has a knife?"
Sifu2: "Run, or pick up a weapon".

Wise words from the west.

[Arising_uk]

If you aim for the torso you're likely to kill, either by hitting essential organs or causing them to bleed to death and so forth.

Which would be the point of using a gun to defend oneself I presume?

It's no Hollywood speak, unless you happen to have just 1 bullet you can sacrifice a couple or more on trying to hit their legs. When a person comes towards you, the legs are close and next to each other, hitting their hips should be easy enough, and while that may not stop them entirely, it's quite easy to outrun somebody halting, and even easier to shoot them a second time with more precision... though if it's a guy you might very well shoot their balls of but at least you tried then.

Tried what? Your idea was that the hypocrite could be a weak one if they attempted to just wound the other but a few shots in the leg would likely hit the major artery and they'd bleed-out there and then. My opinion based upon others opinions is that trying to wound an attacker presumably armed and coming at you full speed and dodging is a fools game and belongs in Hollywood. Of course I can think of one way that may work, but it'd depend upon them being unarmed or at least without a gun, let them close until you can pout the gun on their leg and then pull the trigger, best hope they aren't good with a knife tho.

As for your comment it is is hypocrisy, that is indeed so, but it can very well become a weak hypocrisy. Most people I think believe in self-defence, and don't hold a grudge against somebody who have little alternative in matters of self-defence. You of course, might think it a strong hypocrisy, but my description was on the relationship between the moral judges... like the public, and the case, not individual opinions.

I think this 'public' is individuals opinions and that I am one of them. I've had a rethink about your distinction and now think that there is just hypocrisy, not weak and strong types. I do think it would depend upon what kind of ethicist one is, for example a deontologist, as your idea that the exception to the general rule would make it a weak hypocrisy would not hold for such a one as their rule is exactly designed to tell one what to do in all circumstances that it describes and to do otherwise would make them a hypocrite, whereas the consequentialist can pretty much never be called a hypocrite as they make no normative judgements or at least not in the same way. Given that we call a hypocrite one because they are making a normative statement that they don't follow, i.e. thou shalt not kill and then do something likely to lead to the death of another, can't, I think, be excused by them saying but I did try not to do it, in the example you gave they should just run away. So I think it hypocritical or not with no shades.

With respect to the OP I also think it not the ultimate 'sin' as I have many other things above hypocrisy, e.g. murder, rape, child-abuse, grievous bodily harm, etc and think that hypocrisy is just a self-defeating action if the aim is to convince others to behave.

[The Voice of Time]

As for your comment it is is hypocrisy, that is indeed so, but it can very well become a weak hypocrisy. Most people I think believe in self-defence, and don't hold a grudge against somebody who have little alternative in matters of self-defence. You of course, might think it a strong hypocrisy, but my description was on the relationship between the moral judges... like the public, and the case, not individual opinions.

I think this 'public' is individuals opinions and that I am one of them. I've had a rethink about your distinction and now think that there is just hypocrisy, not weak and strong types. I do think it would depend upon what kind of ethicist one is, for example a deontologist, as your idea that the exception to the general rule would make it a weak hypocrisy would not hold for such a one as their rule is exactly designed to tell one what to do in all circumstances that it describes and to do otherwise would make them a hypocrite, whereas the consequentialist can pretty much never be called a hypocrite as they make no normative judgements or at least not in the same way. Given that we call a hypocrite one because they are making a normative statement that they don't follow, i.e. thou shalt not kill and then do something likely to lead to the death of another, can't, I think, be excused by them saying but I did try not to do it, in the example you gave they should just run away. So I think it hypocritical or not with no shades.[/quote]

You may demand it to be seen that way, but that does not mean there are not ways in which people view hypocrisy effectively in shades, and as such the shades do exist whether you want them to or not, and one can produce a shade from the reasoning above if one cares for the fallibility of authority and rules, which we all do to some degree, or else we would never ever be able to look past the faults in hypocrisy of others and their lives. That's a logical relationship sealed by dependency, the one depending on the other.

You keep saying "I think", I think you should think less and reason more, because else all you're delivering is opinion, and not revealing the spectrum of the subject.

I might also note you that things such as "deontologist" and "consequentialist" are not practical labels because human beings are diverse and differentiate over time and circumstance. It would be exhaustive to be either pure deontologist or pure consequentialist and I believe not for a second that there is any such thing as a pure one across the board. Probably somebody who gets close, but life is 42048000 minutes long for a person who dies at their eighteenth birthday and that's a lot of time to fall outside of the rules you make yourself, even if you shorten it to sixty years where you presumably decided at your twentieth birthday to be eternally a deontologist or consequentialist.

[The Voice of Time]

If you aim for the torso you're likely to kill, either by hitting essential organs or causing them to bleed to death and so forth.

Which would be the point of using a gun to defend oneself I presume?

No. Most people with guns do not aspire to become killers if that's what you think.

I have no love for guns or killings either, but I can't stand your way of confusing in obviously outrageously ridiculous statements like this. I don't believe for a second you are so socially retarded you actually believe yourself there!

[Arising_uk]

No. Most people with guns do not aspire to become killers if that's what you think.

Not what I said but if you own a gun then the possibility is always present as a gun is a tool for killing, nothing less.

I have no love for guns or killings either, but I can't stand your way of confusing in obviously outrageously ridiculous statements like this. I don't believe for a second you are so socially retarded you actually believe yourself there!

What's outrageous is you thinking that if used a gun is a non-lethal defence weapon, you want this use a taser.

[The Voice of Time]

as a gun is a tool for killing, nothing less.

It may not be less but it's a lot more. You fail to understand that people appropriate tools, guns don't kill people, people do, is an old slogan. If I have a gun I can use it for whatever I want, I can shoot at whatever I want, be it living things or dead things, I can shoot at toes or I can shoot at heads.

I appropriate the tool, that's what's outrageous about your ridiculous statements. Just stop it, just stop being so god damn stupid. If you want to argue don't make such stupid sentences, complete your thoughts and don't make me have to argue with you about silly notions like that.

The gun may be lethal, but so is smoking. So is driving a car. That description of "lethal" says nothing about it.

[Arising_uk]

It may not be less but it's a lot more. You fail to understand that people appropriate tools, guns don't kill people, people do, is an old slogan. If I have a gun I can use it for whatever I want, I can shoot at whatever I want, be it living things or dead things, I can shoot at toes or I can shoot at heads. ...

Where did I say you can't? You can shoot at whatever you like, you can use your gun as a hammer, a club or a walking-stick if you like, my point was an opinion based upon the opinion of those that have been involved in such things that your idea of shooting to wound in a situation where presumably one is fearing for ones life is a hollywood fantasy as they say it hard enough in such a situation just to hit the target let alone pick limbs.

I appropriate the tool, that's what's outrageous about your ridiculous statements. Just stop it, just stop being so god damn stupid. If you want to argue don't make such stupid sentences, complete your thoughts and don't make me have to argue with you about silly notions like that.

The gun may be lethal, but so is smoking. So is driving a car. That description of "lethal" says nothing about it.

So what do you think the gun was designed for? What was its function?

[henry quirk]

"I appropriate the tool."

Indeed. You can use a gun as hammer or plow or back scratcher but this would be silly cuz -- while you 'can' use any tool for any purpose -- most tools (like guns) are designed expressly with 'a' purpose.

In the case of guns: designed to fling a bit of metal at high speed, most often with a target in mind, said target -- often -- being organic, alive.

In short: guns are killing machines which -- of course -- can be used as 'hammer or plow or back scratcher' but are most effective when used according to design.


And what exactly all this hugger-mugger has to do with 'hypocrisy' escapes me...

[henry quirk]

And: any gun user will tell you, you never shoot to wound.

You shoot to kill.

[Gary Childress]

Obviously a person can use a gun to wound. However, sometimes, unless a person shoots to kill, the wounded one (if similarly armed) may shoot to stop you from wounding them again and kill you. No one wants to be shot in the leg, therefore in order to avoid that, it makes sense to put the other out of commission before they put us out. Unfortunately there's maybe a justification for escalation there.

Guns are dangerous tools and as pointed out they have a primary purpose and that is to tear through flesh from a relative distance. They can do the same thing to a person that a knife can but are lousy for cutting tomatoes. Therefore it's probably more practical to control the distribution of guns than it is to control the distribution of knives, again depending upon the situation. If someone is thinking of suicide the first thing we are usually told is to remove all sharp objects from their possession. That is probably good advice under the circumstance.

[henry quirk]

"Obviously a person can use a gun to wound."

Sure, you can 'try' to shoot to wound, but, if you wanna just incapacitate someone, there are better tools (taser, pepper spray, etc.).

[The Voice of Time]

Where did I say you can't? You can shoot at whatever you like, you can use your gun as a hammer, a club or a walking-stick if you like, my point was an opinion based upon the opinion of those that have been involved in such things that your idea of shooting to wound in a situation where presumably one is fearing for ones life is a hollywood fantasy as they say it hard enough in such a situation just to hit the target let alone pick limbs.

No it isn't. I think your problem is seeing too many Hollywood movies, because situations usually build up with lots of time to mentally prepare. People usually don't just start shooting at random, perpetrators are usually careful to some degree. In Hollywood you have a blink of a second to act on everything because they want to give you action. That is NOT real life. And I'm saying that because nearly every news story you hear about shootings are situations that build up, they have some degree of predictability or they are stalemates where you have time to consider. Of course almost no news stories in Norway depict situations where anybody have guns because there are so strict regulations on guns in Norway, it is not common ownership (though having hunting rifles isn't very rare either, but rare enough).

So what do you think the gun was designed for? What was its function?

I think the consumer chooses the purpose of a tool, not the producer, though the producer sets the limitations and specifications.

[Gary Childress]

"Obviously a person can use a gun to wound."

Sure, you can 'try' to shoot to wound, but, if you wanna just incapacitate someone, there are better tools (taser, pepper spray, etc.).

Agreed.

[Arising_uk]

No it isn't. I think your problem is seeing too many Hollywood movies, ...

Nope, just listening to those who've actually been in the situation you describe and they say what you claim is nonsense in reality and will get you dead. Unless of course you are talking about shooting an unarmed distant person who has no intention of harming you.

... because situations usually build up with lots of time to mentally prepare. People usually don't just start shooting at random, perpetrators are usually careful to some degree. ...

Which normally means they don't tell you they are going to shoot you, they just shoot you. The situation you talk about is called war and my opinion is based upon the opinion of those who do such stuff.

In Hollywood you have a blink of a second to act on everything because they want to give you action. That is NOT real life. And I'm saying that because nearly every news story you hear about shootings are situations that build up, they have some degree of predictability or they are stalemates where you have time to consider. Of course almost no news stories in Norway depict situations where anybody have guns because there are so strict regulations on guns in Norway, it is not common ownership (though having hunting rifles isn't very rare either, but rare enough).

We have very few guns over here and pretty much all the shootings are people randomly shooting others or gang crimes where the victim is shot with pretty much no warning.

I think the consumer chooses the purpose of a tool, not the producer, though the producer sets the limitations and specifications.

Sure, like I said, you can use your gun for anything you like but its purpose and function is to kill things effectively.

[hammock]

... my point was an opinion based upon the opinion of those that have been involved in such things that your idea of shooting to wound in a situation where presumably one is fearing for ones life is a hollywood fantasy as they say it hard enough in such a situation just to hit the target let alone pick limbs.

Yeah, no overhanging threat of litigation, suspension / expulsion or bad press yet has been high enough to coerce those I've encountered to risk trying to wound an attacker as opposed to blowing them away. I mean, seriously: Civil service and proprietary / contract security personnel do not like to take excessive chances with their own lives and their teammates. Not even those who believe they can rejoin their families and continue their suddenly aborted interests in an afterlife.

There are scenarios that provide exceptions, like where the concerned parties get a chance to have extended conversations over a distance -- to become psychologically acquainted with each other. I.E., when Hatchet Henry doesn't come charging from his shack or vehicle at the very outset with deep pools of bloodthirsty paranoia in his eyes ["Die, #######!"] without nary an informative exchange of introductions. During his earliest duties a former co-worker of mine who took a radical career turn got a chance to listen beforehand to those who knew a behemoth he had to take in. As a result of learning what particular fasteners he had missing in the cranial department and that he lacked access to decent weapons, my old acquaintance managed to stop his fuming bull rush with a good pistol-whipping.