Murder without guilt

[Sushan]

I didn't feel guilt for those that I may have killed overseas because they were intending to kill me. As for taking a life, unless I am threatened, I would rather avoid the confrontation.

I assume that you are talking about killings in the war. Please correct me if I am wrong. In that case, yes, you have to defend yourself. But the initial choice to be in the battlefield and confront the enemy was yours. The enemy may had no intentions to kill you when you were at your home. But when you are at his territory, then it is whether the enemy or you. Both parties have the same choice, either to kill or be killed. In such a situation choosing to kill the other one will neither make you bad or good. But if you could have avoided the initial presence in the battle filed, then the situation would never have occurred.

[Sushan]

I remember reading a (fictional) story about the mysterious case of a number of condemned prisoners who dropped dead as they were being marched out to the electric chair or the firing squad.

The culprit turned out to be a mad scientist character testing a new death ray.

Who had in effect reasoned that this was the minimum-guilt way of doing it...

Well, since they were already on the death raw, some might argue that it is okay to take their lives in any way. But the scientist had no ethical, moral, or legal right to do what he did. Maybe he was harbouring a greater thought and he was free of any guilt after completing his action. Someday he might be a Nobel Prize winner as well. Still, even in fiction, this has been a less guilt way but not a 'guilt-free' way.

[Sushan]

I think there is a difference between what someone, or many people, have come to expect as the psychological consequence of an action and what the 'correct' consequence should be. There doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that a person should feel guilt after having killing another besides our preference that they do so; alongside this, it's likely that murder would be far easier for a person incapable of feeling guilt (or similar emotions) and so in many instances it would be wrong for us to expect guilt.

Put simply, when anyone says that they believe a murderer 'should' feel guilty, this can only be taken to mean that they believe guilt to be the appropriate response; however, they have no grounds to suppose that it is in any way 'correct'.

If we look at this in another perspective, I think many of us had had moments of overwhelming anger that went up to a point to create thoughts in our head to kill the one who is the cause for all our trouble at the moment. But none of us (I suppose ) had committed any murder so far because we had so many factors to avoid us from doing anything so. Rational thinking and the feeling of guilt may have played a big role in that situation. And I think that was the appropriate feeling at that time and the correct one as well.

[Mercury]

I do not think murder is morally permissible, and therefore must carry the appropriate burden of guilt - and it is a heavy burden. You do not kill an individual, but the struggles of their ancestors, to survive, to breed, to bring future generations into the world to give life to the person you deprived of life. You also murder all future generations to whom this person may have given life.
All that said, some people deserve to die. Some people commit acts that are so pitiless, they forego a human right to life. To afford them a human right to life would be to debauch what it is to be human. It is they who killed their ancestors and forebears, it is they who deserve to die.

Those who are deserve to die (as you mentioned) have to be killed by someone in order to let them have what they deserve. But then the man who gives them what they deserve will simply be a killer, and why would he be any better than the ones who initially deserved death penalty?

We might suppose, perhaps that the death penalty has some deterrent effect; such that the executioner makes a statement about what will not be tolerated, and thereby saves lives even as they take a life.

The same deterrent effect will be there if I choose to kill a serial killer for the betterment of society. Many will be saved from death. But I will still be a murderer, and even the law enforcement authorities will chase after me. I might feel accomplishment and happiness within me. But that does not make me a good guy. But to the society I might be a hero. Still, I will be a killer and a bad guy. Ultimately the only difference between me and the serial killer will be the number of deaths that are written in front of our names.

You don't seem to grasp the concept of deterrent. It's against the law to commit murder. If those who commit murder are executed, this prevents other people from committing murder because they don't want to be executed themselves. They are deterred by the severity of the potential punishment.

Vigilantes are not a deterrent because they are inconsistent. Society cannot know if a vigilante will avenge a murder in the way they know the law will, at least try to punish murderers. You may take personal satisfaction from killing a serial killer, but it won't deter anyone else. That said, if you could prove the person was a serial killer - and prove that you had to kill them in order to save the lives of other people, that wouldn't be murder. That would be justifiable homicide.

[Sushan]

I do not think murder is morally permissible, and therefore must carry the appropriate burden of guilt - and it is a heavy burden. You do not kill an individual, but the struggles of their ancestors, to survive, to breed, to bring future generations into the world to give life to the person you deprived of life. You also murder all future generations to whom this person may have given life.
All that said, some people deserve to die. Some people commit acts that are so pitiless, they forego a human right to life. To afford them a human right to life would be to debauch what it is to be human. It is they who killed their ancestors and forebears, it is they who deserve to die.

Those who are deserve to die (as you mentioned) have to be killed by someone in order to let them have what they deserve. But then the man who gives them what they deserve will simply be a killer, and why would he be any better than the ones who initially deserved death penalty?

We might suppose, perhaps that the death penalty has some deterrent effect; such that the executioner makes a statement about what will not be tolerated, and thereby saves lives even as they take a life.

The same deterrent effect will be there if I choose to kill a serial killer for the betterment of society. Many will be saved from death. But I will still be a murderer, and even the law enforcement authorities will chase after me. I might feel accomplishment and happiness within me. But that does not make me a good guy. But to the society I might be a hero. Still, I will be a killer and a bad guy. Ultimately the only difference between me and the serial killer will be the number of deaths that are written in front of our names.

You don't seem to grasp the concept of deterrent. It's against the law to commit murder. If those who commit murder are executed, this prevents other people from committing murder because they don't want to be executed themselves. They are deterred by the severity of the potential punishment.

Vigilantes are not a deterrent because they are inconsistent. Society cannot know if a vigilante will avenge a murder in the way they know the law will, at least try to punish murderers. You may take personal satisfaction from killing a serial killer, but it won't deter anyone else. That said, if you could prove the person was a serial killer - and prove that you had to kill them in order to save the lives of other people, that wouldn't be murder. That would be justifiable homicide.

I agree with the second part of your comment. But I am not very sure about the 'deterrent' part. Do we see a significant difference in the number of killings in the countries that practice capital punishment in comparison to the countries that do not practice that? I do not think so. I think the idea of any kind of punishment is this deterrent effect. But when I see the consistent number of crimes, I think either the humans are not learning anything, or the punishments are too light.

[Mercury]

I do not think murder is morally permissible, and therefore must carry the appropriate burden of guilt - and it is a heavy burden. You do not kill an individual, but the struggles of their ancestors, to survive, to breed, to bring future generations into the world to give life to the person you deprived of life. You also murder all future generations to whom this person may have given life.
All that said, some people deserve to die. Some people commit acts that are so pitiless, they forego a human right to life. To afford them a human right to life would be to debauch what it is to be human. It is they who killed their ancestors and forebears, it is they who deserve to die.

Those who are deserve to die (as you mentioned) have to be killed by someone in order to let them have what they deserve. But then the man who gives them what they deserve will simply be a killer, and why would he be any better than the ones who initially deserved death penalty?

We might suppose, perhaps that the death penalty has some deterrent effect; such that the executioner makes a statement about what will not be tolerated, and thereby saves lives even as they take a life.

The same deterrent effect will be there if I choose to kill a serial killer for the betterment of society. Many will be saved from death. But I will still be a murderer, and even the law enforcement authorities will chase after me. I might feel accomplishment and happiness within me. But that does not make me a good guy. But to the society I might be a hero. Still, I will be a killer and a bad guy. Ultimately the only difference between me and the serial killer will be the number of deaths that are written in front of our names.

You don't seem to grasp the concept of deterrent. It's against the law to commit murder. If those who commit murder are executed, this prevents other people from committing murder because they don't want to be executed themselves. They are deterred by the severity of the potential punishment.

Vigilantes are not a deterrent because they are inconsistent. Society cannot know if a vigilante will avenge a murder in the way they know the law will, at least try to punish murderers. You may take personal satisfaction from killing a serial killer, but it won't deter anyone else. That said, if you could prove the person was a serial killer - and prove that you had to kill them in order to save the lives of other people, that wouldn't be murder. That would be justifiable homicide.

I agree with the second part of your comment. But I am not very sure about the 'deterrent' part. Do we see a significant difference in the number of killings in the countries that practice capital punishment in comparison to the countries that do not practice that? I do not think so. I think the idea of any kind of punishment is this deterrent effect. But when I see the consistent number of crimes, I think either the humans are not learning anything, or the punishments are too light.

I looked it up, and in the US it seems that on the whole states with the death penalty have higher murder rates. It's not completely uniform, i.e. some states that have death penalty have lower murder rates than some that don't, but the overall figure - all states added together, is consistent over time. I'm still not entirely convinced because there's a lot more questions to be asked; not least - which is the cart and which the horse. i.e. do states have the death penalty because of all the people getting murdered - while others, don't have the death penalty because the murder rate is low? I'd need more detailed statistics. But at first glance, there's evidence in support of your argument.
All that said, I still maintain that some people deserve to die. I watched the Darrell Brooks trial, and he was sentenced to over 1000 years in jail. Which is to say, the vast majority of his sentence will not be carried out. Whereas, if he could have been sentenced to death 76 times - he could have served that sentence in each case.

[Sushan]

I do not think murder is morally permissible, and therefore must carry the appropriate burden of guilt - and it is a heavy burden. You do not kill an individual, but the struggles of their ancestors, to survive, to breed, to bring future generations into the world to give life to the person you deprived of life. You also murder all future generations to whom this person may have given life.
All that said, some people deserve to die. Some people commit acts that are so pitiless, they forego a human right to life. To afford them a human right to life would be to debauch what it is to be human. It is they who killed their ancestors and forebears, it is they who deserve to die.

Those who are deserve to die (as you mentioned) have to be killed by someone in order to let them have what they deserve. But then the man who gives them what they deserve will simply be a killer, and why would he be any better than the ones who initially deserved death penalty?

We might suppose, perhaps that the death penalty has some deterrent effect; such that the executioner makes a statement about what will not be tolerated, and thereby saves lives even as they take a life.

The same deterrent effect will be there if I choose to kill a serial killer for the betterment of society. Many will be saved from death. But I will still be a murderer, and even the law enforcement authorities will chase after me. I might feel accomplishment and happiness within me. But that does not make me a good guy. But to the society I might be a hero. Still, I will be a killer and a bad guy. Ultimately the only difference between me and the serial killer will be the number of deaths that are written in front of our names.

You don't seem to grasp the concept of deterrent. It's against the law to commit murder. If those who commit murder are executed, this prevents other people from committing murder because they don't want to be executed themselves. They are deterred by the severity of the potential punishment.

Vigilantes are not a deterrent because they are inconsistent. Society cannot know if a vigilante will avenge a murder in the way they know the law will, at least try to punish murderers. You may take personal satisfaction from killing a serial killer, but it won't deter anyone else. That said, if you could prove the person was a serial killer - and prove that you had to kill them in order to save the lives of other people, that wouldn't be murder. That would be justifiable homicide.

I agree with the second part of your comment. But I am not very sure about the 'deterrent' part. Do we see a significant difference in the number of killings in the countries that practice capital punishment in comparison to the countries that do not practice that? I do not think so. I think the idea of any kind of punishment is this deterrent effect. But when I see the consistent number of crimes, I think either the humans are not learning anything, or the punishments are too light.

I looked it up, and in the US it seems that on the whole states with the death penalty have higher murder rates. It's not completely uniform, i.e. some states that have death penalty have lower murder rates than some that don't, but the overall figure - all states added together, is consistent over time. I'm still not entirely convinced because there's a lot more questions to be asked; not least - which is the cart and which the horse. i.e. do states have the death penalty because of all the people getting murdered - while others, don't have the death penalty because the murder rate is low? I'd need more detailed statistics. But at first glance, there's evidence in support of your argument.
All that said, I still maintain that some people deserve to die. I watched the Darrell Brooks trial, and he was sentenced to over 1000 years in jail. Which is to say, the vast majority of his sentence will not be carried out. Whereas, if he could have been sentenced to death 76 times - he could have served that sentence in each case.

Thank you for looking at the statistics regarding the matter. I think it is hard to control the human desires and thoughts by just showing either a reward or a punishment, like we do with lab rats.

I think that it might work in this way. If all the death penalties are recorded and shown to the others, if all the court orders are recorded and shown to the others, if corrupted government officials are punished and publicly humiliated, these will open at least some of the blind eyes. I have not heard about the Darrell Brooks Trial until you mentioned it. Then I saw the videos as well. So I too agree that the punishment was inadequate. But I think the criminals who saw this will think twice in the future (at least a better way to get away after committing a crime) before committing a new crime.

[Mounce574]

To be honest, I do not think that the death penalty is a deterrant like it should be. For instance: The Parkland Shooter- he killed, intentionally, 17 people. He faced the death penalty but was sentenced to life in prison.
The comment about vigilantes- you cannot avenge the death of anyone. It doesn't bring them back and it makes you fall to the level of the person who originally commited the crime.
I think the death penalty should be involve something equal to the pain the person inflicted upon their victim. Currently, lethal injection is the same thing as going to sleep for surgery. They administer Propofal and a paralytic that stops the heart. The Propofal what is used in surgery. I think that is a nice way to die- not feeling any pain at all.
Electric chair, hanging, firing squad- those are vicous ways to die, and overseas where they do those things, in front of crowds, are effective deterrents.
People literally need to stop and think about they are going to do and understand the repercussions of their actions. Immorality has flooded into the mainstream media and nobody says anything for fear of "hurting people's feelings."

[LuckyR]

To be honest, I do not think that the death penalty is a deterrant like it should be. For instance: The Parkland Shooter- he killed, intentionally, 17 people. He faced the death penalty but was sentenced to life in prison.
The comment about vigilantes- you cannot avenge the death of anyone. It doesn't bring them back and it makes you fall to the level of the person who originally commited the crime.
I think the death penalty should be involve something equal to the pain the person inflicted upon their victim. Currently, lethal injection is the same thing as going to sleep for surgery. They administer Propofal and a paralytic that stops the heart. The Propofal what is used in surgery. I think that is a nice way to die- not feeling any pain at all.
Electric chair, hanging, firing squad- those are vicous ways to die, and overseas where they do those things, in front of crowds, are effective deterrents.
People literally need to stop and think about they are going to do and understand the repercussions of their actions. Immorality has flooded into the mainstream media and nobody says anything for fear of "hurting people's feelings."

Funny, my experience is now-a-days folks say any ol' foolishness, much more than before Social Media. True outliers get called out for saying certain stuff, but that's different than "nobody says anything". Besides, what's wrong with understanding that while YOU can say just about anything, OTHERS can ALSO say things, like they think you're full of cr4p or that they aren't going to patronize the business that employs you.

[Mounce574]

To be honest, I do not think that the death penalty is a deterrant like it should be. For instance: The Parkland Shooter- he killed, intentionally, 17 people. He faced the death penalty but was sentenced to life in prison.
The comment about vigilantes- you cannot avenge the death of anyone. It doesn't bring them back and it makes you fall to the level of the person who originally commited the crime.
I think the death penalty should be involve something equal to the pain the person inflicted upon their victim. Currently, lethal injection is the same thing as going to sleep for surgery. They administer Propofal and a paralytic that stops the heart. The Propofal what is used in surgery. I think that is a nice way to die- not feeling any pain at all.
Electric chair, hanging, firing squad- those are vicous ways to die, and overseas where they do those things, in front of crowds, are effective deterrents.
People literally need to stop and think about they are going to do and understand the repercussions of their actions. Immorality has flooded into the mainstream media and nobody says anything for fear of "hurting people's feelings."

Funny, my experience is now-a-days folks say any ol' foolishness, much more than before Social Media. True outliers get called out for saying certain stuff, but that's different than "nobody says anything". Besides, what's wrong with understanding that while YOU can say just about anything, OTHERS can ALSO say things, like they think you're full of cr4p or that they aren't going to patronize the business that employs you.

Let me bring up the pronoun arguement. A person wants you to use their preferred pronoun of they/them or zer/zir (or whatever it is). That person looks like a woman. If you call that person a woman, they get offended and call you transphobic or using hate-speech. I am more likely to be told that because I don't think that grammar negates a singular being as they/them and I don't live in the imaginary world that person does. That being stated, what do you say if you don't want to offend a complete stranger and don't know what identity that person is? I am traditionalist in the topic- you are a woman or a man- that's it. Again, I'd be labeled a bigot or transphoibic too.

[LuckyR]

To be honest, I do not think that the death penalty is a deterrant like it should be. For instance: The Parkland Shooter- he killed, intentionally, 17 people. He faced the death penalty but was sentenced to life in prison.
The comment about vigilantes- you cannot avenge the death of anyone. It doesn't bring them back and it makes you fall to the level of the person who originally commited the crime.
I think the death penalty should be involve something equal to the pain the person inflicted upon their victim. Currently, lethal injection is the same thing as going to sleep for surgery. They administer Propofal and a paralytic that stops the heart. The Propofal what is used in surgery. I think that is a nice way to die- not feeling any pain at all.
Electric chair, hanging, firing squad- those are vicous ways to die, and overseas where they do those things, in front of crowds, are effective deterrents.
People literally need to stop and think about they are going to do and understand the repercussions of their actions. Immorality has flooded into the mainstream media and nobody says anything for fear of "hurting people's feelings."

Funny, my experience is now-a-days folks say any ol' foolishness, much more than before Social Media. True outliers get called out for saying certain stuff, but that's different than "nobody says anything". Besides, what's wrong with understanding that while YOU can say just about anything, OTHERS can ALSO say things, like they think you're full of cr4p or that they aren't going to patronize the business that employs you.

Let me bring up the pronoun arguement. A person wants you to use their preferred pronoun of they/them or zer/zir (or whatever it is). That person looks like a woman. If you call that person a woman, they get offended and call you transphobic or using hate-speech. I am more likely to be told that because I don't think that grammar negates a singular being as they/them and I don't live in the imaginary world that person does. That being stated, what do you say if you don't want to offend a complete stranger and don't know what identity that person is? I am traditionalist in the topic- you are a woman or a man- that's it. Again, I'd be labeled a bigot or transphoibic too.

Easy question with a single logical answer. Having said that, many compound the situation with their "beliefs" instead of concentrating on what they supposedly are seeking to do (not wanting to offend a complete stranger).

If you see what appears to be a woman you (and everyone else who doesn't know her) are going to use she/her. Fine. If the person prefers "they" do you think they haven't heard "she" before? Especially from a complete stranger? You're not going to be labeled anything at that point, declaring otherwise is trying to play the reverse victim card. However, if the person tells you that they prefer "they" to "she", THAT'S when the question becomes simple. You said that you didn't want to offend a complete stranger, so don't offend "them" and use "they/them". Your "traditionalist" belief system notwithstanding: if you grew up calling Hispanics "Hispanic", but a person tells you they prefer "Latin" are you suffering from a paradox or do you just use "Latin"?

[Good_Egg]

I don't live in the imaginary world that person does. That being stated, what do you say if you don't want to offend a complete stranger and don't know what identity that person is? I am traditionalist in the topic- you are a woman or a man- that's it. Again, I'd be labeled a bigot or transphoibic too.

Easy question with a single logical answer. Having said that, many compound the situation with their "beliefs" instead of concentrating on what they supposedly are seeking to do (not wanting to offend a complete stranger).

If you see what appears to be a woman you (and everyone else who doesn't know her) are going to use she/her. Fine. If the person prefers "they" do you think they haven't heard "she" before? Especially from a complete stranger? You're not going to be labeled anything at that point, declaring otherwise is trying to play the reverse victim card. However, if the person tells you that they prefer "they" to "she", THAT'S when the question becomes simple. You said that you didn't want to offend a complete stranger, so don't offend "them" and use "they/them". Your "traditionalist" belief system notwithstanding: if you grew up calling Hispanics "Hispanic", but a person tells you they prefer "Latin" are you suffering from a paradox or do you just use "Latin"?

How far do you take that approach ?

If an SNP supporter says they're not British (because they're Scottish and Scotland shouldn't be part of Britain), do you go along with that ?

If an apparently 40-year-old person asks for a child fare on your bus, do you go along with that ?

Does courtesy demand that one has no convictions of one's own (regarding who others say they are) ?

Or is respect a two-way street ? Is communication about finding a form of words that both parties are comfortable with ?

[LuckyR]

I don't live in the imaginary world that person does. That being stated, what do you say if you don't want to offend a complete stranger and don't know what identity that person is? I am traditionalist in the topic- you are a woman or a man- that's it. Again, I'd be labeled a bigot or transphoibic too.

Easy question with a single logical answer. Having said that, many compound the situation with their "beliefs" instead of concentrating on what they supposedly are seeking to do (not wanting to offend a complete stranger).

If you see what appears to be a woman you (and everyone else who doesn't know her) are going to use she/her. Fine. If the person prefers "they" do you think they haven't heard "she" before? Especially from a complete stranger? You're not going to be labeled anything at that point, declaring otherwise is trying to play the reverse victim card. However, if the person tells you that they prefer "they" to "she", THAT'S when the question becomes simple. You said that you didn't want to offend a complete stranger, so don't offend "them" and use "they/them". Your "traditionalist" belief system notwithstanding: if you grew up calling Hispanics "Hispanic", but a person tells you they prefer "Latin" are you suffering from a paradox or do you just use "Latin"?

How far do you take that approach ?

If an SNP supporter says they're not British (because they're Scottish and Scotland shouldn't be part of Britain), do you go along with that ?

If an apparently 40-year-old person asks for a child fare on your bus, do you go along with that ?

Does courtesy demand that one has no convictions of one's own (regarding who others say they are) ?

Or is respect a two-way street ? Is communication about finding a form of words that both parties are comfortable with ?

I think you misunderstand my (and Mounce's stated) "approach". We were discussing conversations with a stranger.

If a Scot feels they aren't British, fine. I can't think of a conversation with a stranger where that would come up, but if it did I would NOT say: oh btw you know you're British, right? If you or anyone else just can't bring themselves to let that go then they are fooling themselves that their goal is how not to offend strangers. It would be to practice confrontationalism, ie picking fights.

OTOH, a 40 year old asking for a child's fare from a ticket taker, is an example of employer rule enforcement. The ticket taker's, (the employee's), opinion/standard is immaterial.

So, what's your answer to MY question, do you call the Hispanic guy "Latin" when asked, or do you persist in calling him "Hispanic"?

[Mounce574]

I don't live in the imaginary world that person does. That being stated, what do you say if you don't want to offend a complete stranger and don't know what identity that person is? I am traditionalist in the topic- you are a woman or a man- that's it. Again, I'd be labeled a bigot or transphoibic too.

Easy question with a single logical answer. Having said that, many compound the situation with their "beliefs" instead of concentrating on what they supposedly are seeking to do (not wanting to offend a complete stranger).

If you see what appears to be a woman you (and everyone else who doesn't know her) are going to use she/her. Fine. If the person prefers "they" do you think they haven't heard "she" before? Especially from a complete stranger? You're not going to be labeled anything at that point, declaring otherwise is trying to play the reverse victim card. However, if the person tells you that they prefer "they" to "she", THAT'S when the question becomes simple. You said that you didn't want to offend a complete stranger, so don't offend "them" and use "they/them". Your "traditionalist" belief system notwithstanding: if you grew up calling Hispanics "Hispanic", but a person tells you they prefer "Latin" are you suffering from a paradox or do you just use "Latin"?

How far do you take that approach ?

If an SNP supporter says they're not British (because they're Scottish and Scotland shouldn't be part of Britain), do you go along with that ?

If an apparently 40-year-old person asks for a child fare on your bus, do you go along with that ?

Does courtesy demand that one has no convictions of one's own (regarding who others say they are) ?

Or is respect a two-way street ? Is communication about finding a form of words that both parties are comfortable with ?

I think you misunderstand my (and Mounce's stated) "approach". We were discussing conversations with a stranger.

If a Scot feels they aren't British, fine. I can't think of a conversation with a stranger where that would come up, but if it did I would NOT say: oh btw you know you're British, right? If you or anyone else just can't bring themselves to let that go then they are fooling themselves that their goal is how not to offend strangers. It would be to practice confrontationalism, ie picking fights.

OTOH, a 40 year old asking for a child's fare from a ticket taker, is an example of employer rule enforcement. The ticket taker's, (the employee's), opinion/standard is immaterial.

So, what's your answer to MY question, do you call the Hispanic guy "Latin" when asked, or do you persist in calling him "Hispanic"?

I don't refer to his heritage/race.
Unfortunately, avoidance doesn't always work.
Back to topic: murder without guilt- what guidelines outside of self-defense do you set that justifies murder in any way? Or is it considered punishment instead of murder?

[Good_Egg]

Easy question with a single logical answer. Having said that, many compound the situation with their "beliefs" instead of concentrating on what they supposedly are seeking to do (not wanting to offend a complete stranger).

If you're answering the question "how to get on with a stranger", then yes, the answer "accept their use of language" is both simple and true. "Don't insult them, their tribe or their religion" would be another.

But that's not really the point at issue. The question is more about what is a reasonable balance between getting on with other people and saying what one believes to be true. Somewhere between riding roughshod over their point of view and being a complete doormat lies a happy medium that is polite but not lacking assertiveness.

Even a conversation with a stranger is a form of relationship, involving give and take on both sides.

So, what's your answer to MY question, do you call the Hispanic guy "Latin" when asked, or do you persist in calling him "Hispanic"?

Since you asked, "Hispanic" as a racial descriptor is an Americanism that I have no attachment to. If I'm interested enough to ask about his racial background, then I'm likely to get a better answer if I use his terminology for it. If the terminology seems to me to contain an untruth (?"First Nations"?) then I have to weigh up pragmatically how much I want to hear his information against my distaste for untruth.

Whatever choice is made as part of that encounter, when he's gone away i'll happily talk with you about "cowboys and indians" in the language I grew up with. He has no rights over our conversations together.

I don't refer to his heritage/race.
Unfortunately, avoidance doesn't always work.

Yes, avoiding topics where offence is likely to be taken seems prudent with strangers.

The difficulty with pronouns is that they appear to be making a judgment about a possibly-controversial topic, whilst it is difficult to avoid their use in natural English.

If a female person is visiting my office, I want to be able to say to a colleague to show her where she can get a cup of coffee, without going into personal details of how much that person identifies with masculinity/femininity.

Dragging one's personal baggage, psychological problems and sex life into an office setting is unprofessional.

Back to topic: murder without guilt- what guidelines outside of self-defense do you set that justifies murder in any way? Or is it considered punishment instead of murder?

Apologies for continuing the tangent. I post on a phone in odd moments and haven't mastered the art of quoting a tangential discussion on a new thread.

To my way of thinking, apart from self-defence the other justification for killing is consent. If someone of sound mind asks you to kill him or agrees to you killing him in order to achieve some goal that he cherishes, then it seems that you do not wrong him by so doing.

The law may not call that murder. But then we're into a problem of use of language again - we only call it murder when we think it's unjustified...