The difference between being coerced and coercing

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd just shoot the f*cking dog and not worry about it... but then again, I don't claim it has some "right" against my not initiating force against it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't intitiate anything with this dog.

[/ QUOTE ]
You did if it didn't bite you.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a guy runs at you swinging a large axe while yelling that you are scum and about to get what you deserve, and you manage to shoot him dead just before he reaches you...he didn't initiate anything against you because you escaped injury? That's your position?

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no position, you do. Please tell me what it is. Exactly when may you shoot him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you do have a position, and it was expressed directly above. Your position (apparently) is that he is not initiating an attack against you unless you get injured by that attack (as per the dog example directly above in the quotes). You said that if someone took violent action against a charging dog which was apparently intent on attack, that the dog didn't initiate anything [specifically, it didn't initiate "an attack". -Jogger] with them unless the dog had actually bitten them (see above). I'm applying this to the charging axe-wielder also, and asking you to confirm that you believe the charging axe-wielder isn't initiating against anyone unless he actually harms them. Is that indeed your position with regard to the charging dog and the charging axe-wielder?

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct. However, unlike you, I don't care whether or not they're initiating an attack. I have no moral qualms about "initiation of force", so it doesn't matter (from my standpoint) when exactly the attack begins. I'm perfectly comfortable preempting them on the chance that they are about to attack.

But you say that they, or at least the human, has a right to not have you "initiate a force transaction" against him. Please tell me exactly when it's okay to shoot him because you feel he may be about to harm you, according to your morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jogger is trying to justify his turning human beings into slaves to meet his own selfish ends by this line of argument. He is questioning the 'exact point' and trying to point out that since there is no concrete objective 'exact point' at which it is ok to defend against attack that this justifies him controlling humans lives as someone might do something bad and since there is not objectiv exact point it is reasonalbe for him to begin controlling you and me and our children from birth as an act of self defense. What a swell guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a sad extension of the Heap Paradox. Because you can not describe the exact point at which an act becomes threatening, it is either NEVER threatening or ALWAYS threatening. Just as, since I can never pinpoint the exact moment that human beings became humans, they were either ALWAYS humans, or NEVER humans. Since they ARE humans, we know evolution is false.