|
|
#51
06-27-2007, 09:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Voluntary mutual aid associations >>government \"solution\"
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This might be your most intellectually dishonest post so far. Just in case you missed it, "I don't care" =/= "I agree" [/ QUOTE ] OK, in that case, you must agree that the results of such elections must not be binding on anyone who does not participate. [/ QUOTE ] Whyever would I have to agree to that? [ QUOTE ] "You don't care" = "we have license do to whatever to you" is precisely the basis of the tacit consent doctrine. [/ QUOTE ] False. I simply don't care whether you care. Nor, for that matter, do I care whether the rapist "consents" or "does not consent" to his incarceration. I prefer him incarcerated regardless of his (probable) preference for freedom. (A more strictly apt comparison would be to a mad scientist bent on "improving" smallpox such that it becomes twice as virulent as the "natural" version and wholly unchecked by all existing vaccines, but has no interest in biocontainment. Perhaps his experiments will lead to a good outcome (can't you hear his cry, echoing the sentiments of DCists everywhere? "I have a right to do this!"), but I'd just as soon not find out. If that means I must violate his rights, as he sees them, I think that's a consequence I can live with.) [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Pointing out your lies (propogated in an effort to tarnish the voting process by implication that candidates' positions are somehow secretive or furtive, of course) isn't nit-picking, it's simply pointing out your lies. As you no doubt can understand, I prefer to highlight your dishonesty early, rather than allow it to metastasize 20+ posts down the line. [/ QUOTE ] Now you're dodging the accusation of dodging the question by nitpicking over the nitpicking accusation. Regardless, many candidates DO have secret positions on all sorts of issues. Add to that the fact that you vote for PEOPLE and not ISSUES, and it's patently obvious that no aggregate vote statistics between Monkey X (with positions A, B, and C) and Monkey Y (with positions D, E, and F) can ever "reveal the preferences" of any particular person on any particular issue. [ QUOTE ] Just as an exercise, see if you can't rewrite your "question" sans the dishonesty and the rhetoric. [/ QUOTE ] What happens if I pick whichever one EXPLICITLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY translates to "less regulation" but "more regulation" wins anyway? Happy now? [/ QUOTE ] No: you removed the dishonesty but left the rhetoric. Nonetheless, here's your "answer": The same thing happens that happens if the other guy has AA when you have KK and neither of you improve: you lose. 
|
|
#52
06-28-2007, 01:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Voluntary mutual aid associations >>government \"solution\"
Alright another hijacked thread. It was fun while it lasted.
|
|
#53
06-28-2007, 10:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Voluntary mutual aid associations >>government \"solution\"
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] This might be your most intellectually dishonest post so far. Just in case you missed it, "I don't care" =/= "I agree" [/ QUOTE ] OK, in that case, you must agree that the results of such elections must not be binding on anyone who does not participate. [/ QUOTE ] Whyever would I have to agree to that? [/ QUOTE ] Since "I don't care" does NOT, by your own admission, convey agreement, tacit consent is out. Any such imposition of the results upon non-participants must, then, necessisarily be coercive. Since there is no pre-existing coercion that this coercive imposition is countering, this would be an initiation of coercion, and hence unjustifiable. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "You don't care" = "we have license do to whatever to you" is precisely the basis of the tacit consent doctrine. [/ QUOTE ] False. I simply don't care whether you care. Nor, for that matter, do I care whether the rapist "consents" or "does not consent" to his incarceration. [/ QUOTE ] Of course, a rapist has already initiated a coercive, involuntary interation with someone else. But nice try. It's always intellectually honest to compare your non-violent victim who objects to your coercion to a rapist. [ QUOTE ] I prefer him incarcerated regardless of his (probable) preference for freedom. (A more strictly apt comparison would be to a mad scientist bent on "improving" smallpox such that it becomes twice as virulent as the "natural" version and wholly unchecked by all existing vaccines, but has no interest in biocontainment. Perhaps his experiments will lead to a good outcome (can't you hear his cry, echoing the sentiments of DCists everywhere? "I have a right to do this!"), but I'd just as soon not find out. If that means I must violate his rights, as he sees them, I think that's a consequence I can live with.) [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Just as an exercise, see if you can't rewrite your "question" sans the dishonesty and the rhetoric. [/ QUOTE ] What happens if I pick whichever one EXPLICITLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY translates to "less regulation" but "more regulation" wins anyway? Happy now? [/ QUOTE ] No: you removed the dishonesty but left the rhetoric. [/ QUOTE ] What rhetoric? You said one candidate can obviously be indentified as the "less regulation" candidate. I asked what happens when I do that and the "more regulation" guy wins anyway. [ QUOTE ] Nonetheless, here's your "answer": The same thing happens that happens if the other guy has AA when you have KK and neither of you improve: you lose. [/ QUOTE ] That's way off base. The outcome of a hand of cards doesn't depend on the action of some number of other people. Poker isn't a popularity contest.
|
|
#54
06-28-2007, 09:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Voluntary mutual aid associations >>government \"solution\"
I missed the post where jogger invented the term "DCist." I can only imagine it's intended to be demeaning. Anyone have a link and/or care to enlighten me?
|
|
#55
06-28-2007, 10:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Voluntary mutual aid associations >>government \"solution\"
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] This might be your most intellectually dishonest post so far. Just in case you missed it, "I don't care" =/= "I agree" [/ QUOTE ] OK, in that case, you must agree that the results of such elections must not be binding on anyone who does not participate. [/ QUOTE ] Whyever would I have to agree to that? [/ QUOTE ] Since "I don't care" does NOT, by your own admission, convey agreement, tacit consent is out. Any such imposition of the results upon non-participants must, then, necessisarily be coercive. Since there is no pre-existing coercion that this coercive imposition is countering, this would be an initiation of coercion, and hence unjustifiable within the context of my morality. [/ QUOTE ] FYP [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "You don't care" = "we have license do to whatever to you" is precisely the basis of the tacit consent doctrine. [/ QUOTE ] False. I simply don't care whether you care. Nor, for that matter, do I care whether the rapist "consents" or "does not consent" to his incarceration. [/ QUOTE ] Of course, a rapist has already initiated a coercive, involuntary interation with someone else. But nice try. It's always intellectually honest to compare your non-violent victim who objects to your coercion to a rapist. [/ QUOTE ] Oops, you accidentally ignored the example I provided just after this one to preempt precisely this response. [ QUOTE ] I prefer him incarcerated regardless of his (probable) preference for freedom. (A more strictly apt comparison would be to a mad scientist bent on "improving" smallpox such that it becomes twice as virulent as the "natural" version and wholly unchecked by all existing vaccines, but has no interest in biocontainment. Perhaps his experiments will lead to a good outcome (can't you hear his cry, echoing the sentiments of DCists everywhere? "I have a right to do this!"), but I'd just as soon not find out. If that means I must violate his rights, as he sees them, I think that's a consequence I can live with.) [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Just as an exercise, see if you can't rewrite your "question" sans the dishonesty and the rhetoric. [/ QUOTE ] What happens if I pick whichever one EXPLICITLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY translates to "less regulation" but "more regulation" wins anyway? Happy now? [/ QUOTE ] No: you removed the dishonesty but left the rhetoric. [/ QUOTE ] What rhetoric? You said one candidate can obviously be indentified as the "less regulation" candidate. I asked what happens when I do that and the "more regulation" guy wins anyway. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, and your question is rhetorical, which is why I answered as I did. What happens when you lose? Why, you lose. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Nonetheless, here's your "answer": The same thing happens that happens if the other guy has AA when you have KK and neither of you improve: you lose. [/ QUOTE ] That's way off base. The outcome of a hand of cards doesn't depend on the action of some number of other people. Poker isn't a popularity contest. [/ QUOTE ] You "asked" what happens when you lose. The answer is "you lose".
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
