Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Taking your apples without without using or threatening with violence (unless you are starving), on the other hand, is more like tricking you to work for me. It might not be ok, but that doesn't mean violence is an appropriate response.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Tricking me to work for you" would mean I'm working for you without my consent, which is slavery. Responding to slavery with violence is certainly acceptable.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Taking your apples without without using or threatening with violence (unless you are starving), on the other hand, is more like tricking you to work for me. It might not be ok, but that doesn't mean violence is an appropriate response.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Tricking me to work for you" would mean I'm working for you without my consent, which is slavery. Responding to slavery with violence is certainly acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ] If you say slavery does not require violence or threat of violence, I don't think many people will agree with you. But it's just definitions of words anyway. If you think something can be slavery with no violence or threat of violence, I'll just have to disagree with your statement about the appropriate reactions to all "slavery".

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where are all these AC advocates of murdering people for tresspassing then?

[/ QUOTE ] Sorry. Exchange "shoot" with any form of violence you prefer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any form? If it's OK for me to physically pick someone up and move them, it's OK for me to shoot them in the head?

[/ QUOTE ] Look I said sorry. And I said I already apologized for that. Have to make 3 posts about it, huh? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where are all these AC advocates of murdering people for tresspassing then?

[/ QUOTE ] Sorry. Exchange "shoot" with any form of violence you prefer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any form? If it's OK for me to physically pick someone up and move them, it's OK for me to shoot them in the head?

[/ QUOTE ] Look I said sorry. And I said I already apologized for that. Have to make 3 posts about it, huh? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't read your responses inbetween my responses until I finish typing everything up. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

But seriously, if you say "exchange 'shoot' with any form of violence you prefer" then you're saying all violence is equally appropriate - and therefore you're still misrepresenting (intentionally or not) the position you're arguing against.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where are all these AC advocates of murdering people for tresspassing then?

[/ QUOTE ] Sorry. Exchange "shoot" with any form of violence you prefer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any form? If it's OK for me to physically pick someone up and move them, it's OK for me to shoot them in the head?

[/ QUOTE ] Look I said sorry. And I said I already apologized for that. Have to make 3 posts about it, huh? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't read your responses inbetween my responses until I finish typing everything up. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

But seriously, if you say "exchange 'shoot' with any form of violence you prefer" then you're saying all violence is equally appropriate - and therefore you're still misrepresenting (intentionally or not) the position you're arguing against.

[/ QUOTE ] No. I don't mean to say all violence is equally appropriate. What I'm saying is all violence is inappropriate.

[foal]

this something I'm not quite clear on, re: anarchism. one of you thinks that defending property with violence should be ok and one of you doesn't. but since there are no laws that everyone has to follow, since there is no government, how do you enforce what is "ok" or not? is the idea that you just convince everyone into following a certain set of social norms and hope that those who don't follow them will be kept in check by negative social consequences?

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
this something I'm not quite clear on, re: anarchism. one of you thinks that defending property with violence should be ok and one of you doesn't. but since there are no laws that everyone has to follow, since there is no government, how do you enforce what is "ok" or not? is the idea that you just convince everyone into following a certain set of social norms and hope that those who don't follow them will be kept in check by negative social consequences?

[/ QUOTE ] Well. I think violent reactions to vioelence are reasonable. That includes people violently imposing their views on you, be those views on property or drug use or whatever. So if the world was filled with 50% people agreeing with me, and 50% people agreeing with pvn, we might get a quite horrible bloodbath [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where are all these AC advocates of murdering people for tresspassing then?

[/ QUOTE ] Sorry. Exchange "shoot" with any form of violence you prefer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any form? If it's OK for me to physically pick someone up and move them, it's OK for me to shoot them in the head?

[/ QUOTE ] Look I said sorry. And I said I already apologized for that. Have to make 3 posts about it, huh? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't read your responses inbetween my responses until I finish typing everything up. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

But seriously, if you say "exchange 'shoot' with any form of violence you prefer" then you're saying all violence is equally appropriate - and therefore you're still misrepresenting (intentionally or not) the position you're arguing against.

[/ QUOTE ] No. I don't mean to say all violence is equally appropriate. What I'm saying is all violence is inappropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you *do* agree that violence is appropriate in SOME situations (e.g. responding to violence). In those cases, do you think you can just insert "any form of violence you prefer"?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
this something I'm not quite clear on, re: anarchism. one of you thinks that defending property with violence should be ok and one of you doesn't. but since there are no laws that everyone has to follow, since there is no government, how do you enforce what is "ok" or not? is the idea that you just convince everyone into following a certain set of social norms and hope that those who don't follow them will be kept in check by negative social consequences?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ultimately, yes. If there isn't a "critical mass" of support for those social norms then you're doomed whether there is a state or not.

If there is a social norm against murder, then murderers are going to meet resistance, state or no state.

If there is not a social norm against murder, then murderers will run rampant.

The state is an apparatus for enforcement. That doesn't mean other methods aren't possible.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this something I'm not quite clear on, re: anarchism. one of you thinks that defending property with violence should be ok and one of you doesn't. but since there are no laws that everyone has to follow, since there is no government, how do you enforce what is "ok" or not? is the idea that you just convince everyone into following a certain set of social norms and hope that those who don't follow them will be kept in check by negative social consequences?

[/ QUOTE ] Well. I think violent reactions to vioelence are reasonable. That includes people violently imposing their views on you, be those views on property or drug use or whatever. So if the world was filled with 50% people agreeing with me, and 50% people agreeing with pvn, we might get a quite horrible bloodbath [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you hellbent on initiating a conflict? I'm not.