AC question

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Standard. When you're caught being wrong, try to portray the other guy as some sort of semantics lawyer.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ya seriously, because you never argue semantics. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
You already have a tv but I bring it to your house anyway. I put it down in your living room then ask you for $2000. Should I be allowed to take away your liberty ie lock you up if you refuse to pay me?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can try, but I wouldn't agree, and I would resist you by force.....most likely deadly force for entering my home uninvited.

In my mind, you would be morally wrong. In your mind you may feel morally right, because as luck would have it, people often disagree on what is morally right and wrong, depneding on their perspective, and their beliefs.

But that won't change which one of us gets carried out, and which one of us gets to stay in my home with the new TV. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

(I'm starting to like your analogies, once I realize since they don't have anything to do with the original topic, I'll just take them at face value.....gimme some more.)

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because *sometimes* somepoeple resort to the use of force in conflict resolution, or because it is the preferred method of some people does in no way make it 'essential'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh...I contend it is essential as part of the overall conflict resolution process. I have said several times it is not necessary to be employed in every conflict, but it is essential as part of the overall process.

I think the disconnect here is I am approaching the conflict resolution process as a whole, and you guys are looking at it in the context of each individual specific instance.

Someone, maybe you, had originally said that AC would use "no force", and I responded that it couldn't be right, because force is essential to the conflict resolution process, as a whole.....meaning that force will sometimes be necessary.

Oddly enough, we both agree in principle on the substance of this....but you guys are getting tied up in the semantics of how it is being articulated in an effort to be "right" and have me "wrong."

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just because *sometimes* somepoeple resort to the use of force in conflict resolution, or because it is the preferred method of some people does in no way make it 'essential'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh...I contend it is essential as part of the overall conflict resolution process. I have said several times it is not necessary to be employed in every conflict, but it is essential as part of the overall process.



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious to see the logical proof to demonstrate that it is essential.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it right or is it wrong to take money from someone for forcing them to take a service they don't want just on the basis of which geographical location their property happens to be?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's wrong. They probably think it is right. (the people taking the money)...

We both think we're right, and each other is wrong.

Who decides?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just because *sometimes* somepoeple resort to the use of force in conflict resolution, or because it is the preferred method of some people does in no way make it 'essential'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh...I contend it is essential as part of the overall conflict resolution process. I have said several times it is not necessary to be employed in every conflict, but it is essential as part of the overall process.

I think the disconnect here is I am approaching the conflict resolution process as a whole, and you guys are looking at it in the context of each individual specific instance.

Someone, maybe you, had originally said that AC would use "no force", and I responded that it couldn't be right, because force is essential to the conflict resolution process, as a whole.....meaning that force will sometimes be necessary.

Oddly enough, we both agree in principle on the substance of this....but you guys are getting tied up in the semantics of how it is being articulated in an effort to be "right" and have me "wrong."

[/ QUOTE ]

Listen, I agree that it is highly likely that human beings will use force to solve conflicts to one degree or another for at least hte next 1000 years. I think that is a given, pretty much give or take a few dozen decades or so.

But if you can show with a logical proof that force is necessary, I am interested in reading it.

AC does not automatically make people prone to violence who gravitate to jobs where they carry guns and other weapons and like to act agressive turn into passive people.

AC does not automatically turn people who like to control other people and gravitate towards politics and jobs as inspectors and such into live and let live peace-nics.

We all know that.

What AC does is removes the systematic use of force under the treat of dealth by a territorial monopoly.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Are you suggesting specific geographic locations might not be owned by companies/communities in an AC-setting which charge people for settling and living there?

[/ QUOTE ]

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT AN AC SOCIETY I AM TALKING ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION!

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, if I was born into an AC society in a specific geographical location where corporation/community demands money for me to live there in exchange for a service package, I'll have to say it is a fair deal and if not I will have to move to some other society. Or are you suggesting I should have some geographical birthright to violate the community contract?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol imo

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Are you suggesting specific geographic locations might not be owned by companies/communities in an AC-setting which charge people for settling and living there?

[/ QUOTE ]

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT AN AC SOCIETY I AM TALKING ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION!

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, if I was born into an AC society in a specific geographical location where corporation/community demands money for me to live there in exchange for a service package, I'll have to say it is a fair deal and if not I will have to move to some other society. Or are you suggesting I should have some geographical birthright to violate the community contract?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol imo

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the lol actually. Am I logically wrong when I answer an analogy with another analogy?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just because *sometimes* somepoeple resort to the use of force in conflict resolution, or because it is the preferred method of some people does in no way make it 'essential'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh...I contend it is essential as part of the overall conflict resolution process. I have said several times it is not necessary to be employed in every conflict, but it is essential as part of the overall process.

I think the disconnect here is I am approaching the conflict resolution process as a whole, and you guys are looking at it in the context of each individual specific instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that complicated. The disconnect is over the word essential. I'm sure you'll just blow this off as another "semantics nazi" manifestation, but we're not talking about subtle, nuanced differences here. We're talking about fundamental (essential, even) differences.

[ QUOTE ]
Someone, maybe you, had originally said that AC would use "no force", and I responded that it couldn't be right, because force is essential to the conflict resolution process, as a whole.....meaning that force will sometimes be necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes a two-point conversion will be necessary to win a football game. Is the two-point conversion then essential to the football-game-winning process, as a whole?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Are you suggesting specific geographic locations might not be owned by companies/communities in an AC-setting which charge people for settling and living there?

[/ QUOTE ]

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT AN AC SOCIETY I AM TALKING ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION!

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, if I was born into an AC society in a specific geographical location where corporation/community demands money for me to live there in exchange for a service package, I'll have to say it is a fair deal and if not I will have to move to some other society. Or are you suggesting I should have some geographical birthright to violate the community contract?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol imo

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the lol actually. Am I logically wrong when I answer an analogy with another analogy?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not essentially.

But when he's been asking you several times to answer a question, and specifying several times that he's not talking about X, and you keep not answering the question and you keep stipulating X, and when you do all of this after being the first person in this thread to complain about people not answering your questions, it adds up to a big lol.