Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)

[foal]

Pvn, you’re all over the place. First you try to defend a point, then you use some nonsensical reasoning to try and accuse me of being disingenuous, then you declare the point a straw man, then you go back to defending it again. Not only that, but it seems you now want to paint me as the sneaky no-good statist with his bag of nasty debate traps, red herrings and straw men. I’m about done with this if you don’t start to show a little consistency and civility.

Despite all that, I understand what you’re saying a little better now. You’re saying that the man who takes the drunk’s keys could justify the action by any of the three things you said. Again I’m not quite sure if by entitlement to action you mean ownership over the person you’re acting on. If you don’t mean that then you’ve been arguing with me about nothing. So I’ll assume you do. And you’re still calling it a straw man, but since you’re defending it I’ll try to address some of what you’re saying.

[ QUOTE ]
EXACTLY what I was saying. I DO NOT CARE what your motivation is. I'm asking you for the justification.

[/ QUOTE ]
My justification is that I’ll be doing more good than harm by taking your keys. I don’t see how that is not a justification. If you can show me how removing my red flowers does more good than harm then I’ll be willing to consider that it might be analogous.

[ QUOTE ]
I say all cars have either gasoline or diesel engines. You counter by showing me a car with an air conditioner. Then you claim it's my job to show you how your car fits into my categories.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. Let me ask you this then: do you think I'm justified in taking your keys (or physically restraining you... your choice) in this situation and what reasoning would you use if so?

[ QUOTE ]
Your subjective preference is motivation, not justification. I can repeat this a few more times if you think it will help.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, repeating your (incorrect IMO) opinion is not going to help anything. All justification is subjective.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Further, the point you're trying to make is a strawman,

[/ QUOTE ]
You could have saved some time by not defending it then, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

You could have saved some time by not making it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I asked a question. Specifically “So if anyone ever tries to force anyone to do (or not do) anything it means they think they own them?” How in the hell is that a straw man? If that’s not your position then just say no.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is about rules and systems. Not individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you disagree with any generalized claims about "force", when not specified to rules and systems. That's cool. Again, we could have saved some time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're putting words in my mouth.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I’ll put that another way... Do you disagree with this claim about force, when not specified to rules and systems? I’m asking these questions, because I’m trying to figure out what your position is. It’s hard to figure out when you try to turn every question you get asked into some kind of antagonistic debate.