Differences in political views.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-09-2013, 09:30 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
There is usually no "simply" in moving. Your concept is not practicable for most people.

I disagree with your characterization that having laws that imprison people is initiation of force, or that my responding to force is initiation of force.

When you can provide a cogent definition of initiation of violence and a practicable solution to those who initiate violence, then we can have a useful discussion.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2013, 09:42 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
Quote:I disagree with your characterization that having laws that imprison people is initiation of force, or that my responding to force is initiation of force.

Really, so if I lobbied my politicians to pass a law that everybody who uses the screenname Chas is an enemy of the state and must be imprisoned, and the police showed up at your door, put a gun to your head, and threatened to kill you if you resisted while they handcuffed you and locked you in a cell, that's not "initiation of force".

It's absurd. The definition is crystal clear and obvious. You keep running from it because you like the initiating of force when you're the one initiating it, and it's only violence when you're on the receiving end of the gun.

Physical force refers to matter contacting an individual coercing that individual into doing something against his will. If the police throw you to the ground, put handcuffs on your wrist, and toss you in a cell, that is undeniably initiation of force. If you want to play with word definitions, fine. But, since you know exactly what I mean by violence, physical force, and initiation of force, all you're doing is blocking us from having a useful debate about whether my non-violent solution is better than your violent solution.

Quote: When you can provide a cogent definition of initiation of violence and a practicable solution to those who initiate violence, then we can have a useful discussion.

I've challenged you many times to give me one example where the only difference between us is not simply that I reject using physical force at the national level to coerce people. You can't find one example. You can't find one example where it's ambiguous who is initiating force. The closest you came is if 'someone is breaking into your home', but even then it's totally unambiguous. The burglar is the one initiating force, and the only subjective, moral question is what you should do to defend yourself.

See my post in the 'I want your thoughts on this video' thread. What you're doing is EXACTLY what the Jews and Palestinians are doing. Pretending that it's not violence when it's initiated by the state. Insisting on having all their laws at the national level, etc., etc. So, they're locked in a stalemate of perpetual battle to get control of the whole nation, just like Democrats and Republicans.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2013, 10:27 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
(20-09-2013 09:42 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:I disagree with your characterization that having laws that imprison people is initiation of force, or that my responding to force is initiation of force.

Really, so if I lobbied my politicians to pass a law that everybody who uses the screenname Chas is an enemy of the state and must be imprisoned, and the police showed up at your door, put a gun to your head, and threatened to kill you if you resisted while they handcuffed you and locked you in a cell, that's not "initiation of force".

Being ridiculous helps neither your argument or your credibility.

Quote:It's absurd. The definition is crystal clear and obvious. You keep running from it because you like the initiating of force when you're the one initiating it, and it's only violence when you're on the receiving end of the gun.

No, your definition is not crystal clear and you keep avoiding clarification or grounding it in reality.

Putting violent criminals in prison is not initiation of violence.
Passing laws that stipulate putting violent criminals in prison is not initiation of violence.

Defending myself against violent criminals is not initiation of violence.
Passing laws that stipulate that defending myself against violent criminals is legal is not initiation of violence.

Quote:Physical force refers to matter contacting an individual coercing that individual into doing something against his will. If the police throw you to the ground, put handcuffs on your wrist, and toss you in a cell, that is undeniably initiation of force. If you want to play with word definitions, fine. But, since you know exactly what I mean by violence, physical force, and initiation of force, all you're doing is blocking us from having a useful debate about whether my non-violent solution is better than your violent solution.

Please provide a real solution to dealing with violent criminals.

Quote:
Quote: When you can provide a cogent definition of initiation of violence and a practicable solution to those who initiate violence, then we can have a useful discussion.

I've challenged you many times to give me one example where the only difference between us is not simply that I reject using physical force at the national level to coerce people. You can't find one example. You can't find one example where it's ambiguous who is initiating force. The closest you came is if 'someone is breaking into your home', but even then it's totally unambiguous. The burglar is the one initiating force, and the only subjective, moral question is what you should do to defend yourself.

I have provided the example of violent criminals and you continue to side-step that with the notion of retreat or moving. The onus is not on the victim to avoid the criminal.

Quote:See my post in the 'I want your thoughts on this video' thread. What you're doing is EXACTLY what the Jews and Palestinians are doing. Pretending that it's not violence when it's initiated by the state. Insisting on having all their laws at the national level, etc., etc. So, they're locked in a stalemate of perpetual battle to get control of the whole nation, just like Democrats and Republicans.

That statement is absurd.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-09-2013, 12:07 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(19-09-2013 01:28 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @trulyx, You refuse to answer my questions because there's no way to be specific without revealing how stupid your position is. You keep saying that “I am for violence as long it is in my self-interest”, and I keep asking you for an example, but you cannot find even ONE example time that I have ever advocated violence.

You play games to avoid facing this reality. Here is your current argument: A rapist says “It's purely arbitrary and subjective how much force a woman can use to resist being raped. Some may say she should only scream for help, others may say she should kill me when I attack her. So because there's ambiguity around what use of force is justifiable for self-defense, THEREFORE, it's also ambiguous when it comes to INITIATING force, and if I want to rape a woman, that is fine too.”

That is exactly you're argument. The fact is I have NEVER advocated INITIATING violence against anyone. You can inject heroin in your home, you can spend all your money on whores, you can do whatever you want and I will NEVER send anyone into your home with a gun to force you to live your life the way I want you to. Conversely, every year you guys are passing 100,000 new laws and regulations dictating every aspect of my life and ordering the police to break into my home and shoot me if I ever do something you guys don't like. It is crystal clear which side is INITIATING the force, which one of us is the rapist and which one is the victim. But you try to justify your violence by arguing that since it's subjective when I am entitled to practice self-defense, therefore you can initiate whatever force you want.

However, what particularly exposes your barbaric nature is that I'm a pacifist and I don't want to use force even if it's for self defense. All I'm asking for is that you please let me leave. That's it.

I know I'll NEVER get you club-wielding neanderthals to EVER give up violence since it's so ingrained in your nature. Therefore, my only request is that you please let me leave if your violent ways become too much for me to handle. This means keep your laws at the state & local level, and give me the opportunity to relocate if I can't tolerate your rules. And, if you are so barbaric that you insist on doing everything at the national level, just don't put up barriers to block me from emigrating to escape your laws.

Only the US, North Korea and Cuba put up barriers to block their citizens from leaving. Every other country in the world says “You have to obey our rules only if you voluntarily decide to live in our country. If you don't like it here, you're free to leave, no strings attached, no lingering obligations, we're putting no hurdles in your way.”

I've asked you repeatedly to name one specific policy difference we disagree on and you keep running it from it because you know that in every case it is crystal clear and unambiguous which one of us is INITIATING violence. And I'm such a pacifist that if you come after with me your club, I'm not even going to fight back. All I'm asking is that you let me leave. But, even that one, simple request is too much for a brute like you. You think that because I was born in the US I'm bound to some “contract” that means I'm subjected to you, to do everything you demand my whole life, with no means of escape.

Again, I DARE you to give me one example where we disagree on some policy that is not simply a matter of you being a rapist, club-wielding neanderthal using threats of violence and initiating force against others, while I am asking for you to accept a peaceful alternative.

Your first question was with regard to polices, and I was never discussing polices. I was addressing you having an irrational basis. The other question was about legislating what you claimed as my position, which I never proposed.

Nice attempt at a straw-man, that's helpful. I'm not making a conclusion, I was pointing out an arbitrary position, for which you have yet to provide reasoning and justification, while simultaneously trashing others (whom I also might not support) who simply pick a different basis off of which to make decisions regarding the same topics. I have never said that the position "advocated INITIATING violence". You suggested at different points, that you were against violence and force, in general. Any person can claim they are playing a role in defense, when they take certain forceful action. It isn't reasonable, rational and/or justified simply because they say that it is reasonable, rational and/or justified. Also, I've never said any thing about subjectivity.

We both named examples. I pointed out examples, that YOU were implying support for, that were violent/forceful, e.g., self-defense, law enforcement and relating issues, that have a complete range of scenarios that support violence/force as a means. What is exposed is your hypocrisy and goal-post moving. We started out with you claiming to be against force/violence, implying that it was in general, yet supporting states and governments, law enforcement structures, and basing it all on being defensive. Now you are attempting what you could have done a long time ago, if it was truly your position. You are saying that now you are a complete pacifist, regardless, but you are especially against initiating force-- which just seems like a distraction from that fact that you previously gave support, for violent institutions, which you don't want to retract. You also claim that it is okay if you can leave, which is completely separated from reality, saying that it should be done at a state or local level, ignoring the fact that federal systems are states, and a state can occupy as big of a region as is allowed by reality. I think I've heard the latter position expressed in attempt to describe liberty (as freedom of movement), but more as a description of something more specific. It is good talk for a bar, to give a pretentious, alternative description of freedom, but it really has no relation to this conversation, or as a basis, especially pertaining to what we were discussing.

What you can do is describe honestly and accurately what you position actually is, as opposed to implying support for certain situations and arbitrary principles, just to move on completely contradicting, or ignoring, that support later along in the conversation.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2013, 02:45 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(19-09-2013 10:05 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I discussed this already. Yes, it was a huge tragedy that only white males were considered humans, and all others were livestock. This has nothing to do with whether force should be used at the national or local level. Once minorities were properly classified as "humans" according to the Constitution, they SHOULD have been guaranteed the right to freely move unencumbered out of slave states into free states, and that would have been the end of slavery. This is a complex issue, but it's not the issue at hand now.

... yes it is? It's entirely related.

If you don't care about other people, just say so.

(19-09-2013 10:05 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Provided you're guaranteed the right to leave a state, it's a huge difference.

Yes. I said that.

Multiple levels of government happen to exist in some places in the world today. How and why they are given different competencies would seem to be of some relevance.

(19-09-2013 10:05 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Remember, Hitler and the Nazis were democratically elected...

That is not true.

(19-09-2013 10:05 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... and all those eugenics laws were at the national level with no way for Jews to escape. _IF_ Germany followed the rules in the US Constitution so that all the power was at the local level and every German was guaranteed the right to leave, then worst case, Hitler would been elected to a local state and have passed a law saying "Here in Berlin, we're going to execute all Jews. If you don't want to be executed, you have 30 days move." There would never have been Holocaust if Germany had a Constitution (and a system to ensure it was enforced) which limited the power to the local level and guaranteed freedom of movement.

wut.

The Nazis seized control of all state apparati. "If they followed the rules" then they wouldn't have done what they did? Shocker. If they had followed the rules of Weimar Germany they couldn't have done what they did.

(19-09-2013 10:05 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I will grant you that out of the hundreds of thousands of coercive laws passed at the national level, there are a couple that did good, and the civil rights laws are one of them.

Okay.

(19-09-2013 10:05 PM)frankksj Wrote:  BUT, there are a lot more examples where horrific laws got passed at the national level, and with no means of escape, the results were tragic.

Yes. And it is therefore the specifics and not the principle you object to.

I've said this several times. All is done as perceived to be necessary. So, what is necessary? That's the only real question.

...

(19-09-2013 01:28 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Again, I DARE you to give me one example where we disagree on some policy that is not simply a matter of you being a rapist, club-wielding neanderthal using threats of violence and initiating force against others, while I am asking for you to accept a peaceful alternative.

Managed to miss this earlier.

Yeah, not such a constructive way to make a point. Thumbsup

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2013, 03:46 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
@Trulyx, @cjlr,
This is getting nowhere. I keep saying "Let's discuss global warming", and you keep running from the discussion and saying "But first we need your opinion on eating seafood."

That's what's going on here. I keep saying "Let's discuss the INITIATION of force. I am NOT stating any opinion at all about the use of force defensively. I am ONLY talking about those cases which are crystal clear that ONE side is undeniably the INITIATOR, and I am ONLY saying that in such cases, I think it's better to restrict the INITIATION of force to the local level so the people have some means of escape." But you keep demanding I answer questions about self-defense, which is a totally different topic that, frankly, I don't have any strong opinions about because it's very subjective and I'll leave it up to each community to decide.

In every policy issue that I'm discussing, there is no ambiguity. The first item I discussed was monetary policy. Some people peaceful tried to voluntarily use gold coins (Liberty dollars) as a medium of exchange between themselves. Nobody was tricked or coerced in any possible way. Police showed up at their doors and dragged them away in handcuffs and locked them in a cell. Nobody has ever suggested this was in any related to self-defense. You keep changing the subject to self-defense because you don't like admitting that you're side of the debate is the one using violence.

The other policy issue that I've talked about is drug policy. Again, there is no question of self-defense. If a man groww some plant in my yard and smokes it, he is NOT initiating ANY physical force against anybody. So when you send the police in to tase him and haul him away at gunpoint, it's crystal clear who is initiating force.

I've made it clear that I personally do not approve of ever initiating force like that. But I accept that I'm in a very, very small minority, and you guys will always be initiating force to get what you want. Therefore, the ONLY policy suggestion that I make is that we follow the constitution and when you guys pass laws initiating force, do it at the state level. That way if somebody really wants to grow pot or trade gold coins, and he wants it bad enough to move, he has a way to escape your physical force.

This position is SOOOO clear, obvious and simple. You just seem to strongly resent somebody pointing out to you the cold hard facts that you are on the side of initiating force and providing people no means of escape, so you're running from this with silly games, like asking my opinion on self-defense, asking me to define for the 1000th time "physical force", etc., etc.

In this way it's really almost easier to debate with right-wingers. They have no delusions that they're not initiating force. They just think it's justified because they think their moral code is right. Guys on the left think and do the exact same thing, but they like to pretend like they're not using force.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2013, 04:02 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(20-09-2013 03:46 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @Trulyx, @cjlr,
This is getting nowhere. I keep saying "Let's discuss global warming", and you keep running from the discussion and saying "But first we need your opinion on eating seafood."

Uh, sure.

(20-09-2013 03:46 PM)frankksj Wrote:  That's what's going on here. I keep saying "Let's discuss the INITIATION of force. I am NOT stating any opinion at all about the use of force defensively. I am ONLY talking about those cases which are crystal clear that ONE side is undeniably the INITIATOR, and I am ONLY saying that in such cases, I think it's better to restrict the INITIATION of force to the local level so the people have some means of escape."

Sure. You then must define initiation and force in order for that to be a meaningful statement (didn't I mention that like 100 posts ago?). "[c]ases which are crystal clear" isn't meaningful. Asserting self-evidence is not a substantial argument.

And accepting that entirely, it still doesn't cover every situation.

(20-09-2013 03:46 PM)frankksj Wrote:  But you keep demanding I answer questions about self-defense, which is a totally different topic that, frankly, I don't have any strong opinions about because it's very subjective and I'll leave it up to each community to decide.

Not really. Responses to initiation of force are entirely germane to the topic of initiation of force.

(20-09-2013 03:46 PM)frankksj Wrote:  In every policy issue that I'm discussing, there is no ambiguity. The first item I discussed was monetary policy. Some people peaceful tried to voluntarily use gold coins (Liberty dollars) as a medium of exchange between themselves. Nobody was tricked or coerced in any possible way. Police showed up at their doors and dragged them away in handcuffs and locked them in a cell. Nobody has ever suggested this was in any related to self-defense. You keep changing the subject to self-defense because you don't like admitting that you're side of the debate is the one using violence.

"My" side of the debate consists of asking you questions about your views. Your side consists of ascribing positions to me and then saying they're wrong.
Thumbsup

But, I'm curious, provide me a link to any post of mine where I addressed, say, monetary policy.

(20-09-2013 03:46 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The other policy issue that I've talked about is drug policy. Again, there is no question of self-defense. If a man grow some plant in my yard and smokes it, he is NOT initiating ANY physical force against anybody. So when you send the police in to tase him and haul him away at gunpoint, it's crystal clear who is initiating force.

Sure. In that example our hypothetical pot farmer is not doing anything to anyone. And what about drunk driving?

(20-09-2013 03:46 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I've made it clear that I personally do not approve of ever initiating force like that. But I accept that I'm in a very, very small minority, and you guys will always be initiating force to get what you want.

Nope. I don't know where you're getting any of these ideas about what other people think, but it isn't from their posts.

(20-09-2013 03:46 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Therefore, the ONLY policy suggestion that I make is that we follow the constitution and when you guys pass laws initiating force, do it at the state level. That way if somebody really wants to grow pot or trade gold coins, and he wants it bad enough to move, he has a way to escape your physical force.

And that still doesn't address another of my questions, which is to say that the precise division of powers in the United States is irrelevant to 19/20 people on the planet, and wouldn't it be interesting to consider the origin, basis, and justification for any political power in the first place?

(20-09-2013 03:46 PM)frankksj Wrote:  This position is SOOOO clear, obvious and simple.

You saying something is clear, obvious, and simple does not make it clear, obvious, and simple.

(20-09-2013 03:46 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You just seem to strongly resent somebody pointing out to you the cold hard facts that you are on the side of initiating force...

Citation needed.

(20-09-2013 03:46 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... and providing people no means of escape, so you're running from this with silly games, like asking my opinion on self-defense, asking me to define for the 1000th time "physical force", etc., etc.

In this way it's really almost easier to debate with right-wingers. They have no delusions that they're not initiating force. They just think it's justified because they think their moral code is right. Guys on the left think and do the exact same thing, but they like to pretend like they're not using force.

Citation needed.

...

Let's review:
The disagreement is in when force is justified. It's not really a line, since there's only one firm end-point. Let's call it a ray. The origin is "literally never, ever", which is absolute pacifism well beyond what you've espoused, and it continues along thereafter.

Two people of different minds could consider themselves at different points along that ray. That they disagree does not make one right and one wrong, since it is a matter of opinion. You have stated that you think very little of anyone who disagrees with you. That's all right so far as it goes, in that I can only assume all of us think ourselves to be correct, but as a basis for discussion it's rude and offensive at best.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
20-09-2013, 06:07 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(20-09-2013 03:46 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @Trulyx, @cjlr,
This is getting nowhere. I keep saying "Let's discuss global warming", and you keep running from the discussion and saying "But first we need your opinion on eating seafood."

That's what's going on here. I keep saying "Let's discuss the INITIATION of force. I am NOT stating any opinion at all about the use of force defensively. I am ONLY talking about those cases which are crystal clear that ONE side is undeniably the INITIATOR, and I am ONLY saying that in such cases, I think it's better to restrict the INITIATION of force to the local level so the people have some means of escape." But you keep demanding I answer questions about self-defense, which is a totally different topic that, frankly, I don't have any strong opinions about because it's very subjective and I'll leave it up to each community to decide.

In every policy issue that I'm discussing, there is no ambiguity. The first item I discussed was monetary policy. Some people peaceful tried to voluntarily use gold coins (Liberty dollars) as a medium of exchange between themselves. Nobody was tricked or coerced in any possible way. Police showed up at their doors and dragged them away in handcuffs and locked them in a cell. Nobody has ever suggested this was in any related to self-defense. You keep changing the subject to self-defense because you don't like admitting that you're side of the debate is the one using violence.

The other policy issue that I've talked about is drug policy. Again, there is no question of self-defense. If a man groww some plant in my yard and smokes it, he is NOT initiating ANY physical force against anybody. So when you send the police in to tase him and haul him away at gunpoint, it's crystal clear who is initiating force.

I've made it clear that I personally do not approve of ever initiating force like that. But I accept that I'm in a very, very small minority, and you guys will always be initiating force to get what you want. Therefore, the ONLY policy suggestion that I make is that we follow the constitution and when you guys pass laws initiating force, do it at the state level. That way if somebody really wants to grow pot or trade gold coins, and he wants it bad enough to move, he has a way to escape your physical force.

This position is SOOOO clear, obvious and simple. You just seem to strongly resent somebody pointing out to you the cold hard facts that you are on the side of initiating force and providing people no means of escape, so you're running from this with silly games, like asking my opinion on self-defense, asking me to define for the 1000th time "physical force", etc., etc.

In this way it's really almost easier to debate with right-wingers. They have no delusions that they're not initiating force. They just think it's justified because they think their moral code is right. Guys on the left think and do the exact same thing, but they like to pretend like they're not using force.

Arguing with Cjlr is like arguing with a right-winger in more ways than one. He defends bush when it comes to the pretext for the Iraq invasion. He will proudly state that Bush didn't lie about WMD in Iraq, Something that only right wingers believe in these days.

And yes, modern liberal atheists are just as dumb ideologically as right-wingers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2013, 07:46 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(20-09-2013 06:07 PM)I and I Wrote:  Arguing with Cjlr is like arguing with a right-winger in more ways than one. He defends bush when it comes to the pretext for the Iraq invasion. He will proudly state that Bush didn't lie about WMD in Iraq, Something that only right wingers believe in these days.

I'd be tremendously curious as to your providing one single example of me ever stating that.

Since, y'know, it didn't happen. I know your delusional little shell is more comfortable, but the rest of us don't live in there with you.

If you can tell, now, today, exactly what certain people knew, when they knew it, and what they thought about it, twelve years ago, then there are great things in your future.

PS: You can get back to disproving quantum mechanics any time you like, champ. I'm really looking forward to your response.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
20-09-2013, 08:09 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(20-09-2013 07:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(20-09-2013 06:07 PM)I and I Wrote:  Arguing with Cjlr is like arguing with a right-winger in more ways than one. He defends bush when it comes to the pretext for the Iraq invasion. He will proudly state that Bush didn't lie about WMD in Iraq, Something that only right wingers believe in these days.

I'd be tremendously curious as to your providing one single example of me ever stating that.

Since, y'know, it didn't happen. I know your delusional little shell is more comfortable, but the rest of us don't live in there with you.

If you can tell, now, today, exactly what certain people knew, when they knew it, and what they thought about it, twelve years ago, then there are great things in your future.

PS: You can get back to disproving quantum mechanics any time you like, champ. I'm really looking forward to your response.

You stated it just the other day. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: