|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Should people without kids be exempted from paying taxes that are going towards schools/education? | |||
| yes |
   
|
29 | 18.95% |
| no |
  
|
122 | 79.74% |
| results |
  
|
2 | 1.31% |
| Voters: 153. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#121
06-21-2007, 08:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'd just shoot the f*cking dog and not worry about it... but then again, I don't claim it has some "right" against my not initiating force against it. [/ QUOTE ] You didn't intitiate anything with this dog. [/ QUOTE ] That's right, the dog initiated against him, and I guess that's the fine distinction he doesn't seem to get. [/ QUOTE ] Very fine distinction. Exactly when did it initiate? [/ QUOTE ] When it made the decision to attack and put the plan into motion, charging forward at you. |
|
#122
06-21-2007, 08:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'd just shoot the f*cking dog and not worry about it... but then again, I don't claim it has some "right" against my not initiating force against it. [/ QUOTE ] You didn't intitiate anything with this dog. [/ QUOTE ] That's right, the dog initiated against him, and I guess that's the fine distinction he doesn't seem to get. [/ QUOTE ] Very fine distinction. Exactly when did it initiate? [/ QUOTE ] When it made the decision to attack and put the plan into motion, charging forward at you. [/ QUOTE ] Great, now let's talk about humans: if you buy a gun, does that indicate a decision/plan to attack me? Or rather, to express more clearly: if you decide to attack me, will that sometimes begin by buying a gun? If the answer is "sometimes", please tell me how to differentiate. |
|
#123
06-21-2007, 09:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'd just shoot the f*cking dog and not worry about it... but then again, I don't claim it has some "right" against my not initiating force against it. [/ QUOTE ] You didn't intitiate anything with this dog. [/ QUOTE ] You did if it didn't bite you. [/ QUOTE ] So if a guy runs at you swinging a large axe while yelling that you are scum and about to get what you deserve, and you manage to shoot him dead just before he reaches you...he didn't initiate anything against you because you escaped injury? That's your position? [/ QUOTE ] I have no position, you do. Please tell me what it is. Exactly when may you shoot him? |
|
#124
06-21-2007, 09:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'd just shoot the f*cking dog and not worry about it... but then again, I don't claim it has some "right" against my not initiating force against it. [/ QUOTE ] You didn't intitiate anything with this dog. [/ QUOTE ] You did if it didn't bite you. [/ QUOTE ] So if a guy runs at you swinging a large axe while yelling that you are scum and about to get what you deserve, and you manage to shoot him dead just before he reaches you...he didn't initiate anything against you because you escaped injury? That's your position? [/ QUOTE ] I have no position, you do. Please tell me what it is. Exactly when may you shoot him? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, you do have a position, and it was expressed directly above. Your position (apparently) is that he is not initiating an attack against you unless you get injured by that attack (as per the dog example directly above in the quotes). You said that if someone took violent action against a charging dog which was apparently intent on attack, that the dog didn't initiate anything with them unless the dog had actually bitten them (see above). I'm applying this to the charging axe-wielder also, and asking you to confirm that you believe the charging axe-wielder isn't initiating against anyone unless he actually harms them. Is that indeed your position with regard to the charging dog and the charging axe-wielder? |
|
#125
06-21-2007, 09:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'd just shoot the f*cking dog and not worry about it... but then again, I don't claim it has some "right" against my not initiating force against it. [/ QUOTE ] You didn't intitiate anything with this dog. [/ QUOTE ] That's right, the dog initiated against him, and I guess that's the fine distinction he doesn't seem to get. [/ QUOTE ] Very fine distinction. Exactly when did it initiate? [/ QUOTE ] When it made the decision to attack and put the plan into motion, charging forward at you. [/ QUOTE ] Great, now let's talk about humans: if you buy a gun, does that indicate a decision/plan to attack me? Or rather, to express more clearly: if you decide to attack me, will that sometimes begin by buying a gun? If the answer is "sometimes", please tell me how to differentiate. [/ QUOTE ] Someone buying a gun does not indicate a desire or plan to attack you. If someone plans to attack you, they might begin by buying a gun, or by getting a kitchen knife out of the drawer, or by buying a baseball bat, or a chainsaw, or whatever. The buying of a tool (even a deadly tool) does not indicate a desire or plan to use it against you. If the guy comes at you waving his gun and shouting madly and aggressively at you, then you might have reason to think you were being attacked. Similarly, if a home invader confronts you menacingly with a gun, you may have reason to think you are being attacked. |
|
#126
06-21-2007, 09:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'd just shoot the f*cking dog and not worry about it... but then again, I don't claim it has some "right" against my not initiating force against it. [/ QUOTE ] You didn't intitiate anything with this dog. [/ QUOTE ] You did if it didn't bite you. [/ QUOTE ] So if a guy runs at you swinging a large axe while yelling that you are scum and about to get what you deserve, and you manage to shoot him dead just before he reaches you...he didn't initiate anything against you because you escaped injury? That's your position? [/ QUOTE ] I have no position, you do. Please tell me what it is. Exactly when may you shoot him? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, you do have a position, and it was expressed directly above. Your position (apparently) is that he is not initiating an attack against you unless you get injured by that attack (as per the dog example directly above in the quotes). You said that if someone took violent action against a charging dog which was apparently intent on attack, that the dog didn't initiate anything [specifically, it didn't initiate "an attack". -Jogger] with them unless the dog had actually bitten them (see above). I'm applying this to the charging axe-wielder also, and asking you to confirm that you believe the charging axe-wielder isn't initiating against anyone unless he actually harms them. Is that indeed your position with regard to the charging dog and the charging axe-wielder? [/ QUOTE ] Correct. However, unlike you, I don't care whether or not they're initiating an attack. I have no moral qualms about "initiation of force", so it doesn't matter (from my standpoint) when exactly the attack begins. I'm perfectly comfortable preempting them on the chance that they are about to attack. But you say that they, or at least the human, has a right to not have you "initiate a force transaction" against him. Please tell me exactly when it's okay to shoot him because you feel he may be about to harm you, according to your morality. |
|
#127
06-21-2007, 09:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'd just shoot the f*cking dog and not worry about it... but then again, I don't claim it has some "right" against my not initiating force against it. [/ QUOTE ] You didn't intitiate anything with this dog. [/ QUOTE ] That's right, the dog initiated against him, and I guess that's the fine distinction he doesn't seem to get. [/ QUOTE ] Very fine distinction. Exactly when did it initiate? [/ QUOTE ] When it made the decision to attack and put the plan into motion, charging forward at you. [/ QUOTE ] Great, now let's talk about humans: if you buy a gun, does that indicate a decision/plan to attack me? Or rather, to express more clearly: if you decide to attack me, will that sometimes begin by buying a gun? If the answer is "sometimes", please tell me how to differentiate. [/ QUOTE ] Someone buying a gun does not indicate a desire or plan to attack you. If someone plans to attack you, they might begin by buying a gun, or by getting a kitchen knife out of the drawer, or by buying a baseball bat, or a chainsaw, or whatever. The buying of a tool (even a deadly tool) does not indicate a desire or plan to use it against you. If the guy comes at you waving his gun and shouting madly and aggressively at you, then you might have reason to think you were being attacked. [/ QUOTE ] Incorrect. You might have reason to think you were *about to be* attacked. Is "thinking you're about to be attacked" adequate justification to initiate a force transaction against someone? [ QUOTE ] Similarly, if a home invader confronts you menacingly with a gun, you may have reason to think you are being attacked. [/ QUOTE ] Depending upon the nature of the confrontation, this can be true. Now: would it be okay to shoot him if he were walking toward your front door while carrying a gun? How about if he were walking down your street while carrying a gun? How about driving across your state line while carrying a gun? At exactly what point is it okay to initiate a force transaction against him because you feel he might be going to initiate one against you? |
|
#128
06-21-2007, 10:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'd just shoot the f*cking dog and not worry about it... but then again, I don't claim it has some "right" against my not initiating force against it. [/ QUOTE ] You didn't intitiate anything with this dog. [/ QUOTE ] That's right, the dog initiated against him, and I guess that's the fine distinction he doesn't seem to get. [/ QUOTE ] Very fine distinction. Exactly when did it initiate? [/ QUOTE ] When it made the decision to attack and put the plan into motion, charging forward at you. [/ QUOTE ] Great, now let's talk about humans: if you buy a gun, does that indicate a decision/plan to attack me? Or rather, to express more clearly: if you decide to attack me, will that sometimes begin by buying a gun? If the answer is "sometimes", please tell me how to differentiate. [/ QUOTE ] Someone buying a gun does not indicate a desire or plan to attack you. If someone plans to attack you, they might begin by buying a gun, or by getting a kitchen knife out of the drawer, or by buying a baseball bat, or a chainsaw, or whatever. The buying of a tool (even a deadly tool) does not indicate a desire or plan to use it against you. If the guy comes at you waving his gun and shouting madly and aggressively at you, then you might have reason to think you were being attacked. [/ QUOTE ] Incorrect. You might have reason to think you were *about to be* attacked. Is "thinking you're about to be attacked" adequate justification to initiate a force transaction against someone? [ QUOTE ] Similarly, if a home invader confronts you menacingly with a gun, you may have reason to think you are being attacked. [/ QUOTE ] Depending upon the nature of the confrontation, this can be true. Now: would it be okay to shoot him if he were walking toward your front door while carrying a gun? How about if he were walking down your street while carrying a gun? How about driving across your state line while carrying a gun? At exactly what point is it okay to initiate a force transaction against him because you feel he might be going to initiate one against you? [/ QUOTE ] You must use your judgment and it had better be good judgment. If your standards or perception vary dramatically from those of most people on this sort of issue, you may expect to encounter problems if you apply those standards (for instance, a paranoid schizophrenic experiencing a psychotic episode mistakenly thinks that the postman, who is actually delivering mail, is about to attack him, so he pre-emptively runs out and stabs him with a steak knife). edit: Another example: if you think that your neighbors and townsfolk who legitimately own guns, who have no criminal records, and who have never made threatening noises or gestures towards you, are planning to shoot you and that that is the reason they have guns in their houses, then your judgment would be very poor. Depending upon what you might attempt based on that bad judgment or misperception, your actions could run from nothing, to merely misguided, to actively insane. As earlier, I will stress that (in my opinion) the matter calls for good judgment more than it calls for a precise line of definition. |
|
#129
06-21-2007, 10:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
[ QUOTE ]
Depending upon the nature of the confrontation, this can be true. Now: would it be okay to shoot him if he were walking toward your front door while carrying a gun? How about if he were walking down your street while carrying a gun? How about driving across your state line while carrying a gun? At exactly what point is it okay to initiate a force transaction against him because you feel he might be going to initiate one against you? [/ QUOTE ] It is impossible to make a list of every possible situation and the point in each where it is OK to defend yourself. We trust you to make this decision on your own. If others disagree with you, you may be called to arbitration (think free market court) to defend your actions. You have been told this many, many times now. We should all stop repeating ourselves. |
|
#130
06-21-2007, 10:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The difference between being coerced and coercing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] That would only be true if I accepted your bogus axiom that you have some absolute right to property you've mixed your labor with, which of course I do not. [/ QUOTE ] Whoa, what? You yourself said that if all land is owned you only exist at the consent of others. I pointed out that this is the scenario now and nothing crazy has happened. This is an exercise in futility with you. [/ QUOTE ] Wow. Look at the context. I said "<u>IF</u>" I accept ACist premises, here are the consequences. Please tell me you don't somehow think I've drunk from that particular batch of kool-aid. [/ QUOTE ] No, if you look at the context out of nowhere you interject this "bogus ac premise" which has nothing to do with the conversation. Your worry is that in an AC society people will eventually only live based on the consent of others. Your reasoning is because all land will eventually owned, but THIS IS THE CURRENT SITUATION, AND THIS PATHOLOGICAL SCENARIO HASN'T HAPPENED. [ QUOTE ] I had no intention of using this as a strawman, and apparently you haven't denied it enough. Please tell me exactly what it is that you feel is required to exert a right to property. [/ QUOTE ] I've already done this dozens of times, specifically for you (don't you remember us having this exact conversation?). I'm not doing it anymore. I'm with john, this is nothing but mental masterbation at this point. |
|
|
|
Linear Mode
