The difference between being coerced and coercing

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lets face it, like him or not, agree with him or not, jogger is just about the only poster who has provided the AC croud with any real stimulation in the politics forum in quite a while. I don't know if he's a troll or not but if he is I kind of like to think of him as pretty harmless yet interesting pet troll, like those little plastic figures with the colorful Don King hair.

http://troll.freeservers.com/

[/ QUOTE ]
Guys, enough throwing around the troll-accusation. Not everyone who disagrees with AC or plays devil's advocate is a troll.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's really quite funny that people pile on me for the "troll accusations" when he's REPEATEDLY called me a troll in this thread and I have yet to call him one even ONCE in this entire discussion.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I was sorta thinking that that fact, coupled with at least some of the folks on here would both recognize the fact that I don't troll (though I've been hostile a couple times in response to what I perceived as trollishness), recognize the fact that Vagos does, and vote their conscience, would make the voting pretty interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, how I wish I was able to call other people trolls with impunity!

[ QUOTE ]
and of course the wicked irony if Vagos got himself voted off the forum because of his own suggestion, as enforced by the voluntary (and completely non-compulsory!) voting of a group composed in large part of ACists would also warm my little heart...


[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, at this point...I might just voluntarily (ohh derp!) leave on my own without the poll. If this forum is just going to be run by one mod who will accuse me of doing something I did not, allow you to committ the same offense with impunity, and then ignore all my PM's, I'm not sure it's something I really care to partake in.

I'll give Iron a little more time to respond, I hope my concerns are addressed via PM or in this thread. I'll be waiting.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I was sorta thinking that that fact, coupled with at least some of the folks on here would both recognize the fact that I don't troll (though I've been hostile a couple times in response to what I perceived as trollishness), recognize the fact that Vagos does, and vote their conscience, would make the voting pretty interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, how I wish I was able to call other people trolls with impunity!

[ QUOTE ]
and of course the wicked irony if Vagos got himself voted off the forum because of his own suggestion, as enforced by the voluntary (and completely non-compulsory!) voting of a group composed in large part of ACists would also warm my little heart...


[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, at this point...I might just voluntarily (ohh derp!) leave on my own without the poll. If this forum is just going to be run by one mod who will accuse me of doing something I did not, allow you to committ the same offense with impunity, and then ignore all my PM's, I'm not sure it's something I really care to partake in.

I'll give Iron a little more time to respond, I hope my concerns are addressed via PM or in this thread. I'll be waiting.

[/ QUOTE ]

When someone pretty much single handedly takes on a group like 8 to 1 or something I think they should be cut a little slack. Who else is going to engage in any at length debate with the AC croud here? Almost everyone else going running for the hills after 4-5 posts.


Everyone has the liberty to respond or not to any of his posts. I realize I'm in the somewhat unique position of being an ACist who is not having my morals called into question and picked at with tweezers under a microscope but you don't have to engage him if you don't want to. I told him flat out I would only play that on a tit for tat basis.

He wants to pick apart the 'initiaition of force' or the exclusivity of property rights, I want to pick apart what a person is 'owed' or 'deserves' by other humans.

In short you do not have to 'play' with someone who only wants to play offense and runs off the field when it's their turn to play defense if you don't want to. And if he is playing 'unfairly' challenge yourself to articulate it and educate him, iron, me, and everyoone else so that we can understand exactly how.

I don't think he's a troll but I do think he's putting considerable heat on people's moral principles in a way that the posters here are not used to. He is sometimes using somewhat absurd edge case examples but this is how morality is tested isn't it?

I don't believe in the moral superiority of AC over all other possible worlds and no one has convinced me otherwise. I would choose it over most other systems but not because of it's moral purity.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When she initiates violence against you. In this instance, it would be the moment she squeezes the trigger (while pointing the gun at you, not her own head).

[/ QUOTE ]

But what if there are no bullets in the gun, or only blanks?

[/ QUOTE ]
She has tried to attack you and failed. (Veracity test by extension: if everybody walked around with empty guns, pointing them at random and squeezing the trigger, (however you might feel about this behavior) should they be arrested for "attacking" others? I don't think so.)

[ QUOTE ]
Would I be justified in tackling her and breaking here arm to halt further attack, even though she couldn't possibly have harmed me?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not according to ACism, as I understand it, since she has not actually attacked you. You might well want to do so anyway, however, and a more reasonable system would certainly permit you to do so, since (assuming she did not know that the gun would not fire) she is plainly a very real threat to you, and more reasonable systems allow violence in response to a mere threat, not merely in response to violence itself.

[ QUOTE ]
Does it matter if I perceive to be attacked, or if I actually am attacked?

[/ QUOTE ]
The following answer assumes you are asking what is/is not allowable according to the ACist claim that one must never initiate a force transaction: If you perceive an attack that didn't happen and initiated a force transaction in response, you would be morally wrong, mitigated by the fact that at the time you initiated your force transaction, you did not believe that that was what you were doing. (Ala the policeman who shoots a kid holding a water gun, because he erroniously thinks that it is a real gun.) If you actually are attacked, you have done no wrong by closing the force transaction.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would you prefer a poll, or should the mods get to decide?


[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the one mod, who told me to lay off the troll accusations when you've called me a troll 3 times in this thread compared to my 0. Yea, that'd be real fair.

[/ QUOTE ]
You propose a survivor style vote in a thread dominated by ACists, where an AC sympathizer competes against an openly anti-AC statist, and suddenly you're worried about bias and fairness when I propose the converse? Gosh Vagos, if I didn't know any better, I'd almost think you had a double standard here.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll give Iron a little more time to respond, I hope my concerns are addressed via PM or in this thread. I'll be waiting.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's my response: threads about who is a troll, complaining about moderation and a survivor that isn't going to happen are boring. IIRC, I didn't say that Vagos was particulary guilty, I just reminded everyone to play nice. I guess that didn't happen.