[steve-b]

The fallacy of r9etb's "argument" lies in his rubber definition of the word "subjective". (One wonders how r9etb defines the words "alone", "sex", and "is".) Of course, by a quick presto-chango between two different definitions of the same word, one can prove all sorts of absurd things, e.g.:

1) No cat has two tails.
2) A cat has one more tail than no cat.
3) Ergo, a cat has three tails. QED

 

In this particular case, r9etb is making use of the following distinct definitions of the word "subjective":

1) Modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background.

2) Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world.

Using definition (1), r9etb sets up an example of a situation where a person's understanding of reality is (as it always is to some degree) limited by that person's previous knowledge and sensory perceptions. Then comes the switcheroo to definition (2), leading to the absurd conclusion that to have a limited or incorrect perception of specific facts is equivalent to being disconnected from reality and guided by arbitrary notions out of one's head.

[Dead Corpse]

Yep. I noticed. Good way to break it down. Breaking down the strawman still leaves the straw though.

[r9etb]

First, common thread courtesy demands that when you're talking about me, you include me in your response.

Second, I did not "pull a switcheroo." I was consistent in this sense of the dictionary definition of subjective:

3 a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind.

At issue here is DC's statement that he is justified in initiating force if he perceives himself to be in danger. There is no room in this for the gunman's actual intent, or any actual threat -- DC's justification for shooting is based solely on his perception of the gunman's intentions.

The justification for violating the non-initiation principle is therefore explicitly subjective.

leading to the absurd conclusion that to have a limited or incorrect perception of specific facts is equivalent to being disconnected from reality and guided by arbitrary notions out of one's head.

It's an "absurd conclusion" only because you've added an absurd statement that I did not make. Nobody but you said anything about the threat being arbitrary or disconnected from reality.

OTOH, the threat may seem very real, and yet not be a threat at all. For example, cops sometimes mistake the motion of reaching for (say) a wallet, as a move toward a gun; or the pointing of a plastic toy gun as the pointing of a real gun. In such cases we might excuse a mistaken shooting on the basis of "reasonable cause."

The simple fact is that a subjective assessment ("I believe I am being threatened") is deemed sufficient to overrule the supposedly absolute non-initiation principle. As such, there is indeed something "relative" about it.