AC question

[tame_deuces]

As I pointed out in a later post, the whole debate for my part was to point out the flaw of using an analogy in the first place, and how futile it is to debate around them.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And you still have yet to actually explain why the analogies were faulty. This is pretty common here, when presented with an analogy that drills a hole straight through one's argument, just label it a "bad analogy" due to "differences" and cut and run.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there any particular reason why you so often refuse to discuss the actual topic at hand, and insist so often on addressing only your own customized, malformed analogies?

[/ QUOTE ]

I already asked once, and got no answer:

What do you think "the topic and hand" is?

[ QUOTE ]
I realize that they share some similarities to the original topic, which you rely on to support their use, but they so often contain significant differences from the original topic, enough to allow you to distort your original assertions to appear to "fit", when they don't then fit the actual topic we were discussing.

If nothing else, just please explain why you are so averse to discussing actual topics as they arise, and you rely heavily on substituting similar but not exact analogy ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you going to answer either question? When someone asks you WHY the analogies were faulty, do you really think asserting AGAIN that the analogies were faulty answers the question?

WHAT is the topic at hand?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.


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

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, in so much as the abscence of the state would decentralize the power it currently enjoys, and spread it more evenly over several other entities......but conflicts will still exist, as will the use of force.

Granted, in my opinion, with the level of power being more equalized, it is more likely to be used more judicially and abused far less, but nevertheless, it will be present.

Some people would argue that AC doesn't eliminate the systematic use of force, but instead de-regulates it from a state monopoly into the hands of powerful private entities....so to speak. I don't necessarily agree, but it isn't outside the realm of possibility.

We wouldn't really know how it plays out until it happens, and it could go either way depending on a number of factors, and depending on the specific scenarios.

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Conflict is resolved either by agreement or by force.

Anytime agreement cannot be reached, force is necessary.

The force can be in the form of coercion, which is agreement under the threat of force, or directly through force.

If you and I have a disagreement over a piece of property, and we both believe we are right and refuse to agree otherwise, we currently appeal to the state to resolve that conflict, and their decision is binding, backed by the implied use of overwhelming force.

It is the same in an AC secnario, only the authority we appeal to changes. If we both disagree over a piece of property and refuse to agree amongst ourselves, we may agree to binding arbitration, in which case their decision would be binding by their implied use of force that is greater that the force we could employ to defend against it.

In another example, I may not agree to arbitration, and refuse any agreement whatsoever, in which case you may employ a private security/defense/enforcement firm to enforce your rightful legitimate claim against what I think is my rightful legitimate claim.

That company you employ will attempt to enforce their decision either through agreement, force, or a combination of the two.

Etc, etc.

In short, no matter what ideology governs (or non-governs), whether it be statism, ACism, BCism, or AC/DCism...people are going to disagree, and it is going to require conflict resolution. That resolution is going to have to be achieved through either agreement or force, and ultimately will need to be enforced either through the implied or explicit threat of force from an authority with a definitive edge in power as to deter the dissenter.

And make no mistake, this isn't to the detriment of AC, if anything, it is a positive for it, as the de-regulation of the force monopoly the state enjoys would spread power relatively equal among the masses....theoretically evening the playing field and making the use of unnecessary force a less appealing option.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]

As I pointed out in a later post, the whole debate for my part was to point out the flaw of using an analogy in the first place, and how futile it is to debate around them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I bet u never heard/used an analogy teaching/learining orgizational behavior, etc..

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not that complicated. The disconnect is over the word essential.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me clarify....force is essential to conflict resolution as a <u>process</u>.....it is NOT essential to be employed in the resolution of each and every conflict.

Hopefully, the overwhelming majority of conflicts are resolved without the consideration of force.

However, failing the ability to reach agreement, it is essential to have force as an option as part of your overall conflict resolution <u>process</u>.

[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on your use of this analogy, I think I found our disconnect. It isn't the definition of "essential", but yet the confusion over "process".

The "conflict resolution process", alluding to this analogy, is the "playbook". Ie....Force is essential to the conflict resolution playbook. It MUST be an option, otherwise the process as a whole is vulnerable to exploit.

Back to the analogy, if your down 30-28 and need a two-point conversion to tie and give your team a chance to win in OT....but the two-point conversion isn't in your playbook....then you kick the PAT and lose.

It is essential to the process, in so much as it has to be an option....just as the two-point conversion is essential to the playbook as it may at times be necessary to employ as an option.......even though in both cases we hope it doesn't come to that....but we know that if worse comes to worse, and we need to employ force or "go for 2", we can because it is a part of our process.

[bkholdem]

So lots of conflicts are resolved without the use of any force whatsoever. Lots, and lots, and lots of them.

Therefore force is not necessary to resolve conflict.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

I already asked once, and got no answer:

What do you think "the topic and hand" is?


[/ QUOTE ]

Who the hell knows anymore, with as much stuff that has been thrown against the wall, and the unwillingness of anyone to stay on any given track.

We've bounced between starving children, breaking in to deliver TV's, two-point conversions, Mr. X, Hot Dogs, and I think their was even a purple elephant in there somewhere along the way, but I'm not entirely sure.... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img].

[ QUOTE ]

Are you going to answer either question?

[/ QUOTE ]

The last time I tried simply answering one of your questions, you flew off the handle in a rant because I had the nerve to actually answer you, when it was actually a normative rhetorical that wasn't supposed to be descriptively answered. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Now you are getting upset that I am not answering your questions....sheesh man, make up your mind already.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As I pointed out in a later post, the whole debate for my part was to point out the flaw of using an analogy in the first place, and how futile it is to debate around them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I bet u never heard/used an analogy teaching/learining orgizational behavior, etc..

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually you hear many. When you apply statistics on human behavior you essentially construct variables that you measure, and then put it all into a construct (your model or w/e) which you either hope to show has some predictive value, or assume it has due to previous studies and you now attempt to put it into actual use.

Essentially these models are nothing more than scientific analogies, they aren't 'the real thing' - and what you get isn't anything more than a 'good guess' and often the entire thing can get a little hazy. It's good science, which can be done in a solid manner, but not exact by any means.

But if you simplify down into a black&amp;white scenario with only one possible judgement from any reasonable human being to prove that you are correct beyond any doubt, then the value of the analogy is non-existent.

And what is so hard with asking 'the state taxes you Y to pay for X which you don't want, is this morally right?' anyway? We hardly need analogies about thieves, hotdog salesmen or strange television deliveries to discuss that issue.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
So lots of conflicts are resolved without the use of any force whatsoever. Lots, and lots, and lots of them.


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely.

[ QUOTE ]

Therefore force is not necessary to resolve conflict.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly right, regarding certain individual examples.

But it *is* essential to the overall conflict resolution process.

If you remove it, your conflict resolution process is extermely exploitable.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As I pointed out in a later post, the whole debate for my part was to point out the flaw of using an analogy in the first place, and how futile it is to debate around them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I bet u never heard/used an analogy teaching/learining orgizational behavior, etc..

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually you hear many. When you apply statistics on human behavior you essentially construct variables that you measure, and then put it all into a construct (your model or w/e) which you either hope to show has some predictive value, or assume it has due to previous studies and you now attempt to put it into actual use.

Essentially these models are nothing more than scientific analogies, they aren't 'the real thing' - and what you get isn't anything more than a 'good guess' and often the entire thing can get a little hazy. It's good science, which can be done in a solid manner, but not exact by any means.

But if you simplify down into a black&amp;white scenario with only one possible judgement from any reasonable human being to prove that you are correct beyond any doubt, then the value of the analogy is non-existent.

And what is so hard with asking 'the state taxes you Y to pay for X which you don't want, is this morally right?' anyway? We hardly need analogies about thieves, hotdog salesmen or strange television deliveries to discuss that issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

The use of analogies, in particualr colorful analogies, are IMO often much more instructive in making a point that typing out a narrative in paragraph form.

I know that for myself, hundreds, if not thousands of 'lightbulbs' have went off in my head when I suddely understood a point after listening to the use of an analogy one used to make a point.

It also invokes the visual sensi or imagination or something I think in a way that pure narrative does not which engrains the learning (ie. the lightbulb).

I have turned meetings around and had people almost standing on their heads from injecting an analogy. The 'competition' was left speechless, the audience now looking at them as on the wrong side of the issue and looking toward me as enlightening them to some fundamental truth.

The skillful use of analogies (at which pvn IMO is an absolute artist) are powerful means of communication.