"AT LEAST GIVE ME MADE IN JAPAN VERSION!!! ARGH!!!"

Idk where you live as far as l know there is no law against self-defense so if you can prove it is self-defense, you should be alright.

Your parents can even potentially sue the other parents back.

Your parents have to talk back against his parents, you have to explain it to your parents that it is self defense.

If its blown out of proportions especially if its involved parents vs parents, school will eventually drop it out.

That would contradict itself then since taking it as what it said literally mean sarcasm doesn't exist. As everything is as what it looks like it says without hidden meaning.

Sarcasm literally means you say something but you mean exactly the opposite. If you take it straight for what it does say and means, meaning there is no sarcasm.

>!And once again this is quite harmful for someone who have to live with severe intrusive thought. My anxiety got triggered from reading this.!<

>"attach clear, specific meanings to words,” identifying what the words refer to in reality: Take it literally. Don’t translate it, don’t glamorize it, don’t make the mistake of thinking, as many people do: “Oh, nobody could possibly mean this!” and then proceed to endow it with some whitewashed meaning of your own. Take it straight, for what it does say and mean.

What? I stop reading after this. It's basically saying sarcasm does not exist?...

>!And as someone with OCD I personally say this feels harmful. Sometimes people take words too literally when it wasn't even mean as such and it gives them negative impact. And OCD and GAD gives their sufferer a lot of harmful and false ideas!<

As someone who does not live in the west: Interesting

Wouldn't people be horrified by this superpower instead?...

> It's only the experience of free will (what we mean by free will)

Ugh...Why are you saying what's inside the () as the same thing as you previously said?

> While actual freedom sets the boundaries of our moral community (members must be free and moral rules are limited to those we can freely obey)

What does that even mean? How does freedom sets boundaries of moral community? And how does what is inside the bracket even explains it? Yes Moral Rules are limited to those we can freely obey, even if that is not always the case. But how does it sets boundaries of moral community, how does freedom sets it.

You have the freedom to set boundaries, doesn't mean freedom itself sets it. How does that make sense?

> Conscious freedom (or as philosophers may call it, autonomy) is acting in accordance with our higher order principles. For social contract purposes, this means that our conscious selves would create universal moral rules based on the principles of freedom and reason. Our consciously free selves create and consent to the social contract.

Hence our conscious selves creates boundaries...Which we have the freedom to create.

I am not saying you can't differentiate them, it's just seemingly pointless to do so. And what you said here doesn't seems to actually support your point from my view.

True too. Though I feel in this particular scenario it's...Really unnecessary.

Unfortunately, since you are replying for my comment about the summary of OP's writing.

This reply better off be sent towards OP instead of me. I am not the one making this philosophical take, the OP did.

Theres some I agree and some I don't.

I kinda agree this feels like overcomplicating things.

From what I understand, which I could be wrong; the writer makes 2 differentiation between Freedom

Actual Freedom which is the definition of Freedom: Do whatever you want.

And Conscious Freedom: A "Freedom" to choose to limit yourself so you don't do what society consider as bad. Such as society/law telling us Murder is bad and we shouldn't do it. And we have the "Freedom" to agree to it and practice it; that is, not committing murder.

Feels like unnecessary to make them different tbh. But that is my personal opinion.