"Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you."

Is it possible to interpret that in some way that allows you to kill someone attacking you? It seems pretty straightforward to me, especially combined with other pacifist passages.

Given the oceans of blood the Romans spilled after they adopted Christianity, I'm surprised that non-violent stuff even made it in the Bible. Maybe by then it was too late to take it out.

I also believe it is right and just to defend yourself or another from an attacker, and a war may be justly waged. — NotAristotle

How does that square with the following:
"Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."


"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person."


“But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them."

It seems obvious to me that Jesus has anticipated the self-defense/just-war question:
What if someone attacks me?
Do not resist evil
What if they attack my kids?
Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you
What if my country is at war?
All who draw the sword will die by the sword

I don't know how you can read Jesus's teachings as anything other than total pacifism. He couldn't have been any clearer on the subject.

Should we fight when faced with an evil enemy like Micheal or should we do as christ did and lay down our lives for the ones we love because we are taught by him to love our enemies? — Average

Jesus is pretty clear on that. Put your trust in God. Let your enemies do what they will. Don't resist them. Forgive them, no matter what they do. This existence on Earth is nothing compared to what lies ahead in Heaven.

That's my reading of it anyway.

BiV scenarios are implausible because mindless matter cannot produce minds. You can't get consciousness from non-conscious stuff. In support of this assertion is the continued failure of science to come up with a solution for the mind-body problem.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-25-year-old-bet-about-consciousness-has-finally-been-settled/

Scientists will keep losing these bets. Eventually, people will abandon the metaphysical assumption that matter exists. Idealism is true. BiV problem solved!

So there has [ETA: never] been any nation that has not used taxes to fund militaries. Why is that? What's your theory? Mine is you can't fund militaries without taxes, not for a nation of any significant size. It's not doable without taxes.

War bonds, donations, money-printing, slavery, conscription, economic revenue and other methods besides taxation have been used by governments to fund militaries. — NOS4A2

Those methods have been used ON TOP of taxation.

I’m not sure. Is the absence of something an argument against something, in your eyes? — NOS4A2

Yes. The absence of a non-tax funded military for a sizeable nation suggests it's not doable. Why do you think it's never been done?

Voluntarily paid for by those who purchase the services, sure. — NOS4A2

Has there ever in history (or now) been any decently sized country that has run their military that way?

Militias, private militaries, security contractors. — NOS4A2

Paid for through voluntary donations by the people?

I wouldn’t. But a moral means to funding anything is through just and voluntary transactions. — NOS4A2

Is there any country on Earth that funds it's military that way?

It’s evil to take people’s property and force them to labor for your benefit without any just and voluntary compensation. Do you think there is there no other way to fund an enterprise without this method? — NOS4A2

In the kingdom of NOS4A2, what would your military look like? How would you fund it?

The point is: the benefits of taxation can only ever serve to mask the evils of the entire enterprise. — NOS4A2

Taxation to provide for the collective defense is evil? How else would you fund a military?

One can spend days looking through indictments, criticisms, and books for any wrongdoing that isn’t verbal and come up empty-handed. — NOS4A2

https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/donald-j-trump-pays-court-ordered-2-million-illegally-using-trump-foundation

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/09/1174975870/trump-carroll-verdict

ETA: Oops, Praxis beat me to it on the rape case.

Yeah, I wonder how we choose them... People don't know about these representative candidates because there is no tradition that they would publicly talk about their political views. In the end, who will be elected is predetermined, thus people don't really have a say in it. — Hailey

So you don't choose representatives to govern you.

We also choose representives to goven. — Hailey

How do you choose your representative in China?

The best thing about him is that he is anti-war. — Hailey

Do you not remember when Iran launched missiles at an American air base and soldiers were sent to the hospital with TBI's? What do you think would have happened had any of those missiles killed an American?

Assume two photos of the same size. Is there the same amount of information no matter what the picture is? How do you calculate the maximum amount of information a picture can have?

There are problems of jurisprudence with the notion of good samaritan duties though because it is difficult to establish what behaviour is required exactly. — Tobias

Therein lies the rub. Should I be compelled to rescue a child being attacked by a small dog that doesn't really pose a threat to me but still might bite me? Save a person dangling from a cliff where I might break a leg if I fall too? Pull someone out of a burning car that might explode? Give some of my extra food to starving people? Give some of my money to uninsured people who need a life-saving expensive operation? By being a member of society we kind of do that with our taxes, but that's a step removed from out-and-out punishing someone for not being a good Samaritan.

This is interesting:

"But, when a person is in peril as a result of their own conscious decision to expose themselves to the risk of harm, witnesses have a reduced duty to rescue and, under certain circumstances,
may be completely absolved of liability. Liability for failure to rescue is
also unlikely if a person would risk personal injury to execute the rescue."
https://www.swlaw.edu/sites/default/files/2022-06/10.%20Okumori%20%2828%20Sw.%20J.%20Int%27l%20L.%20258-273%29.pdf

If Republicans nominate someone like DeSantis or Haley, the debates will be brutal for Biden. But they're stuck in racial grievance mode and they want RETRIBUTION.

What's your take on Mary's Room?

There are plenty of states that compel a duty of care actually. The Netherlands and most continental European countries have this. Penalties are relatively mild though up to 6 months if I remember correctly. Tobias maybe you remember more details?

Even in some States in the USA. I looked it up at some point and wrote about this before on this site. If you want to know more I can search for it. — Benkei

I thought it was just if you were a member of certain occupations. Looking it up, I see California, the state I'm in, has no "duty to rescue". Only three states require you to help someone (beyond calling 911): Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

I think what should be abandoned is the metaphysical assumption of some kind of dualism where over here sits physical things and over there sits mental things and they are totally separable. In that regard, the idea that matter generates consciousness is based on a faulty assumption. — Apustimelogist

OK, but if the materialist/physicalist model of reality keeps failing to explain consciousness (either by explaining how it happens, reducing it to brain states, or arguing successfully it doesn't exist at all), how long before we ditch the metaphysical assumption that non-conscious mindless stuff exists?

If they were (as you are suggesting), then I can unconsent from saving the kid who is drowning in the pool (given there is no one else around to do it) because there is risk to my body getting an ear infection. — Bob Ross

1), I'm not sure you should be forced to save a drowning kid. It would be nice if you did, but do we want government compelling charitable acts?
2) Forcing a woman to give birth is not even close to risking an ear infection. It entails months of pregnancy and birth has all sorts of complications and a non-trivial mortality rate.

Having others tell a woman she must carry to term just sounds like a violation in itself. — Benkei

Yes. If bodily autonomy is violated because of x, then it will get violated for y and z and pretty soon people are claiming that a woman can never have an abortion for any reason. Best not to go down that road in the first place. The woman's rights always trump the fetus's, regardless of personhood.

I don't think it's complex. A woman's bodily autonomy right trumps the fetus's rights at every stage, even if it's a person at the moment of conception. Bodily autonomy rights are that important.

Physicalism/materialism has so far been unable to explain consciousness. At what point should we abandon the metaphysical assumption that matter can be conscious and/or generate consciousness? What if, 1000 years from now, there still is no consensus on how matter produces consciousness. Would you still be a physicalist/materialist?

I worked with an evangelical who adored Trump until Jan 6th and all the stolen election stuff. Then she did a complete 180 and hated him foreverafter. I always used to needle her: did you really think this would end well?

There's also nothing new under the sun. If an advanced intelligence that has figured it all out tried to explain it to us, could we understand the explanation? Or at least get the gist of it?

I'm sure. I mean, we'll never know, but how would someone transported between two completely different epochs respond? I don't think they would be able to cope. You'd have to break their whole worldview right down and build it up again from scratch. — Wayfarer

I think you could explain the double slit experiment to them without too much trouble.

Nobody would have been able to guess what, say, quantum theory would turn out like, prior to the pioneers actually doing the investigations and devising the math. — Wayfarer

Are you claiming that QM would have been impossible to understand for the Greek atomists using nothing but their language and concepts?

Only 1 in 4 young people are voting. That's really sad. That shows they don't really care about climate change.
— RogueAI

I don’t think that’s what it means at all. — Mikie

So they care about climate change but won't take a couple hours every two years to vote about it?

So what may appear might be simply concepts that are too complicated to understand, rather than concepts beyond what an idealized human mind might conjure up. — jgill

Can't any concept be broken down into smaller understandable sub-concepts? Is there a theorem on that?

People do things they don’t want to do all the time. It’s up to us to make it easier or harder. Bad habits, addictions, etc— I doubt many people want to continue with these things, but often times it’s simply “easier” than the alternative. It should be made harder. The reverse is true of good behavior — it should be made easier, regardless of what one thinks about it. — Mikie

Sure, but we're having a tough time electing people (Democrats) who want people to make rather trivial sacrifices. The fossil fuel lobby (Republicans) controls the House! There are other factors at play, but if people really wanted to limit fossil fuels and transition to a greener economy, Democrats would be in much better shape.

"National Youth Turnout: 23% - That's lower than in the historic 2018 cycle (28%) which broke records for turnout, but much higher than in 2014, when only 13% of youth voted."
https://circle.tufts.edu/2022-election-center

Only 1 in 4 young people are voting. That's really sad. That shows they don't really care about climate change.

This next American election will be illuminating because you clearly have one side pushing climate change policies and the other side pushing increased fossil fuel production. I predict it will be really close again, and the fossil fuel party has a good chance of winning. The price of gas has gone up about $1.50 a gallon in the past five years, and there have been howls of despair. People want to combat climate change, but they don't want to sacrifice their standard of living while doing it.

Well, this problem (like most problems involving humans) isn't an issue of not figuring out what to do, it is a problem of actually doing it. — LuckyR

There's the rub. People don't want to make the sacrifices necessary to really combat the problem. Also,

"While loss and damage was discussed at the Paris climate talks in 2015, progress has been slow. Industrialized countries have been reluctant to commit funding, concerned it could lead to being legally liable for the impacts of climate change. At this year's climate talks, developing countries say it's a crucial part of climate justice."
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/11/1054809644/climate-change-cop26-loss-and-damage

Money is the answer to 99% of all questions, including why can't we solve/mitigate climate change?

These trials would be a wonderful forum for Trump to prove the election was stolen. Doubtless he will try and do so, which begs my question: why does he keep trying to delay the trials? If you had proof an election was stolen against you, wouldn't you be on our soapbox every chance you could get? Especially in a court of law when the whole world is watching?

" there is no "consciousness center" that has all sensory information flowing to it. Rather, there is a lot of parallel processing and interconnectedness at every step of perception."

But there is still an overarching mind that makes judgements about what constitutes truth or not.

We can know with 100% that pain exists. Could we tell we are high or depressed if we cannot be sure of our comparisons with not-high or not-depressed? — Richard Goldstein

You would probably need a point of comparison to figure out if you are high or not, but depressed? Do you have to have experienced non-depression to know you're depressed?

Do we know with 100% certainty that we're in extreme pain? High? Depressed?