-->
@Mopac
It isn't legal to kill non citizens.
Apparently it is legal to kill non citizens. [LINK]
Anti-Abortion = Anti-Personal-Privacy
Posts
Total:
411
-->
@3RU7AL
No it isn't.
-->
@Mopac
No it isn't.
It certainly is, according to that very recent supreme court case. It just depends on where they're standing.
-->
@3RU7AL
This is not relevant to our discussion.
-->
@Mopac
You brought it up. [POST#116]
And if you think about it, the principle does seem to apply.
(IFF) a woman's womb is her sovereign territory (THEN) a doctor (border guard) can kill a non-citizen within that territory and suffer no legal repercussions.
Why should a zygote/embryo/fetus be afforded greater legal protections (from death) than a fully grown human being standing on a different piece of dirt?
-->
@3RU7AL
Child sacrifice is an abomination and I think your reasoning is wicked.
Abortion or r the "right" to have one isn't worth defending.
Perhaps society should move away from the myth that sexual immorality isn't real outside of rape.
-->
@3RU7AL
Would you consider taxes are form of government coercion?
Would you consider rules anti-antithetical to freedom?
Determinism as an axiom, do you consider judging people based on actions they have no control over fair?
-->
@3RU7AL
@3RU7AL:
The corporations funnel money into a shell company registered as a CHARITY.These are con-artists.The legislators they sucker into thinking they've got great ideas that will appeal to their voters are morons.
Your interpretation of the video you cited was that these legislators were "suckered," rather than legislators and lobbyists using the Charity as a front to exchange legislation for money? Why do you assume that these legislators are oblivious rather than complicit?
Think of it this way:
A man is married to a woman who'd eventually cheat on him and have an affair. Who's the con-artist? The woman who made a commitment to the man and later shirked it, or her partner who has no obligation to the man, and his role was that he wined and dined man #1's wife and sold her on the idea of the affair?
@secularmerlin:
I am not responsible for your wellbeing but that does not justify me shooting you.
You are if I threaten you with harm. Once I initiate aggression, your obligation is to end the aggression or the threat thereof. It isn't your responsibility to gauge how your actions will affect me, especially if you're placed under duress. If I initiate any sort of physical conflict particularly aggression, I automatically risk my person even my life in an altercation. That is a prospect I must consider; and if I proceed, then the liability of that prospect befalls me.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Would you consider taxes are form of government coercion?
Taxes are primarily a social-contract that provides services that facilitate the function of a peaceful and civil society.
Without public roads, public hospitals, public fire and police departments, and public schools we'd basically be living in the wild west.
So, yes, taxes are coercive to those who refuse to pay them, but the whole point of government is to facilitate the function of a peaceful and civil society.
Would you consider rules anti-antithetical to freedom?
Somewhat. Although without rules (wild west) force becomes the rule and is often MORE despotic than LAW. For example, [LINK]
Unbridled freedom inevitably devolves into despotism. In order to maximize freedom, there must be some system of LAW.
Determinism as an axiom, do you consider judging people based on actions they have no control over fair?
Do you believe it is fair to incarcerate a rabid dog?
Do you believe it is fair to blame a broken cog for the failure of an engine to function properly?
There are practical, utilitarian reasons to remove dangerous actors from society (to mitigate harm and facilitate the function of a peaceful and civil society), even if the dangerous actors themselves have no-real-choice.
-->
@Athias
If I initiate any sort of physical conflict particularly aggression, I automatically risk my person even my life in an altercation.
So, if you're rude to me or say something that sounds like a veiled threat, I can kill you to mitigate my risk?
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you believe it is fair to incarcerate a rabid dog?Do you believe it is fair to blame a broken cog for the failure of an engine to function properly?
Why ask me questions when I wanted your answer?
Can you answer it first.
There are practical, utilitarian reasons to remove dangerous actors from society (to mitigate harm and facilitate the function of a peaceful and civil society), even if the dangerous actors themselves have no-real-choice.
I agree but it doesn't answer my question.
-->
@3RU7AL
We've been through this:
What about implicit threats? What about perceived threats? Are "pre-emptive strikes" legitimate responses to implicit threats, or are they naked "acts of aggression"?
I'll use examples:1. My neighbor has an armed bomb in his basement that can take out a city block; up until the moment the bomb explodes, my neighbor has done me no harm. However, if that bomb were to detonate, there's no question that I would be affected.2. A person points a firearm at me. The person states that he intends to kill me. Up until the moment he discharges his weapon, he has done me no harm. However, if that firearm were to discharge, there's no question that I would be affected.The threat must be immediately tied and embodied in the initiation of aggression.
Being rude in an of itself doesn't constitute a threat of aggression (initiation and/or act of physical harm); And veiled threat? In what context? A veiled threat is oxymoronic--if it's "veiled" then which intention is my threat "stating"? Give an example you believe fits my description.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yes, 100% fair.Determinism as an axiom, do you consider judging people based on actions they have no control over fair?
In exactly the same way that it is fair to incarcerate a rabid dog.
There is no reason to "blame the dog" for its rabidity.
There is no reason to "punish the dog" for its rabidity.
But it is imperative that we facilitate the function of a peaceful and civil society, and a small part of that involves mitigating public risk.
-->
@Athias
1. My neighbor has an armed bomb in his basement that can take out a city block; up until the moment the bomb explodes, my neighbor has done me no harm. However, if that bomb were to detonate, there's no question that I would be affected.
This scenario is beyond your epistemological limits.
And veiled threat? In what context? A veiled threat is oxymoronic--if it's "veiled" then which intention is my threat "stating"? Give an example you believe fits my description.
This is a veiled threat - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTFV78kON9o
-->
@3RU7AL
Why?Yes, 100% fair
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yes, 100% fairWhy?
If they pose a credible threat to themselves or other members of society, then they should be isolated and treated humanely in order to facilitate the function of a peaceful and civil society.
You don't have to blame a rabid dog for its actions in order to take steps to mitigate its potential danger to society.
-->
@3RU7AL
This scenario is beyond your epistemological limits.
How is that beyond my epistemological limits?
This is a veiled threat - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTFV78kON9o
Or he may be trying to sell him insurance: Jury Duty (watch to the 13:00 mark)
In your example, where in that coded message do you believe the threat is being made? Where is the statement of intention? And exactly what is he threatening?
-->
@3RU7AL
If they pose a credible threat to themselves or other members of society, then they should be isolated and treated humanely in order to facilitate the function of a peaceful and civil society.
How about outside a credible threat?
-->
@Athias
How is that beyond my epistemological limits?
There is no way for you to know what your neighbor is doing on their private real-estate-territory without violating their personal-privacy.
Does your "individualism" include personal-privacy protection?
In your example, where in that coded message do you believe the threat is being made? Where is the statement of intention? And exactly what is he threatening?
If a person, who has a reputation for violence, shows up unexpectedly and demonstrates they have personal knowledge of and a particular interest in you and or your loved ones, this can reasonably be interpreted as a credible implicit threat.
The key difference between the mafia threat and the insurance salesman is that only the mafia threat demonstrated personal knowledge of and a particular interest in the individual in question.
In the same way, if you received a notice that a warrant for your arrest had been issued, this would carry with it an implicit threat of violent coercion.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If they pose a credible threat to themselves or other members of society, then they should be isolated and treated humanely in order to facilitate the function of a peaceful and civil society.How about outside a credible threat?
Like what? A conceivable threat? A probable threat? A hypothetical threat? An empty threat? An implicit threat?
Even a comical threat could be considered harassment (or assault in some cases) and might warrant a stern warning or a restraining order.
-->
@3RU7AL
Not judging based on threat.Like what? A conceivable threat? A probable threat? A hypothetical threat? An empty threat? An implicit threat?
-->
@3RU7AL
There is no way for you to know what your neighbor is doing on their private real-estate-territory without violating their personal-privacy.
Really? What if I've been to the house, as well as the basement, and seen it? Where in my scenario did I ever state that he was hiding the bomb? Or that he never invited anyone over to his home?
Does your "individualism" include personal-privacy protection?
Why are you scare-quoting individualism? And no, it does not. Privacy is a euphemism for property right. Under it's current colloquial expression, I contend one can pay attention to whatever one pleases. But I cannot (ought not) violate a property right without moral accountability.
If a person, who has a reputation for violence, shows up unexpectedly and demonstrates they have personal knowledge of and a particular interest in you and or your loved ones, this can reasonably be interpreted as a credible implicit threat.
So if a professional Boxer told me the same thing, it would be an implicit threat? And an implicit threat of what? You haven't answered the questions I posed earlier.
The key difference between the mafia threat and the insurance salesman is that only the mafia threat demonstrated personal knowledge of and a particular interest in the individual in question.
This doesn't matter; one doesn't need personal knowledge or "interest" in a particular individual. And honestly, there isn't much difference between our examples. My example played on lexical semantics; your example may in fact convey a threat, but that clip alone, doesn't constitute much. How does Danny know Eugenne? Has he ever witness a violent act by Eugenne? Were those words ever associated with Eugenne's violent acts? Where in Eugenne's statement can his intention be deciphered? What is Eugenne intending to do?
[And just for the sake of your knowledge, I've never watched "The Sopranos."]
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Like what? A conceivable threat? A probable threat? A hypothetical threat? An empty threat? An implicit threat?Not judging based on threat.
Please be slightly more specific.
-->
@3RU7AL
Basically a cog is broken and the machine breaks. You have no connection to the cog or the machine and you believe in determinism. Do you still judge them like would you still blame the cog for breaking?Please be slightly more specific.
I stated no connection so that you can't use potential threat.
-->
@Athias
But I cannot (ought not) violate a property right without moral accountability.
In practice, does this "property right" provide an implicit right-to-privacy?
And an implicit threat of what?
Violence.
How does Danny know Eugenne?
By reputation.
Has he ever witness a violent act by Eugenne?
Not personally.
Were those words ever associated with Eugenne's violent acts?
Unknown.
Where in Eugenne's statement can his intention be deciphered?
The apparently spontaneous personal interest and the direct reference to jury duty.
What is Eugenne intending to do?
Intimidate.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Please be slightly more specific.Basically a cog is broken and the machine breaks.
The "cog" is a "potentially dangerous individual" and the "machine" is a "peaceful and civil society".
You have no connection to the cog or the machine and you believe in determinism.
Ok.
Do you still judge them like would you still blame the cog for breaking?
If I have "no connection" to either hypothetical objects, I have no logical motivation to "judge".
And why would I bother to "blame" or "punish" the cog? It's merely a practical matter of either repairing or replacing the cog.
I stated no connection so that you can't use potential threat.
I'm still not sure what you're asking.
If I know the expected operational life-cycle of this particular cog is three years, and the cog has been operational for four, and I have some reason to want to keep this particular machine in running condition, I might want to order a replacement cog and schedule a maintenance window.
-->
@3RU7AL
The "cog" is a "potentially dangerous individual" and the "machine" is a "peaceful and civil society".
Why did you define the cog as an individual?
I did state you had no connection to it so why did you state it as potentially dangerous?
I wasn't making a metaphor. It is simple a machine.
It's merely a practical matter of either repairing or replacing the cog.
Wait I am going to bring up something else you said:
TRN:Determinism as an axiom, do you consider judging people based on actions they have no control over fair?3RU7AL:Yes, 100% fair.In exactly the same way that it is fair to incarcerate a rabid dog.There is no reason to "blame the dog" for its rabidity.There is no reason to "punish the dog" for its rabidity.But it is imperative that we facilitate the function of a peaceful and civil society, and a small part of that involves mitigating public risk.
You say you have no reason to blame the dog but you say it is imperative to incarcerate in order for us to live in a peaceful society. Excluding the imperative of it facilitating a livable society would you still blame the dog?
Is the imperative to facilitate a functioning society an axiom of yours?
I'm still not sure what you're asking.
I think I gave a question earlier that might help you understand what I am saying.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Why did you define the cog as an individual?
To illustrate how justice is still fully-functional in a hypothetically deterministic universe.
I did state you had no connection to it so why did you state it as potentially dangerous?
When you say "judge" and "blame" it strongly suggests there has been some level of infraction.
I wasn't making a metaphor. It is simple a machine.
Great, why do you want my opinion on a machine that has nothing to do with me?
It's merely a practical matter of either repairing or replacing the cog.Wait I am going to bring up something else you said:
Ok,
TRN:Determinism as an axiom, do you consider judging people based on actions they have no control over fair?3RU7AL:Yes, 100% fair.In exactly the same way that it is fair to incarcerate a rabid dog.There is no reason to "blame the dog" for its rabidity.There is no reason to "punish the dog" for its rabidity.But it is imperative that we facilitate the function of a peaceful and civil society, and a small part of that involves mitigating public risk.You say you have no reason to blame the dog but you say it is imperative to incarcerate in order for us to live in a peaceful society. Excluding the imperative of it facilitating a livable society would you still blame the dog?
If the rabid dog had no way of damaging myself or any members of my society, I would be perfectly content to let it run its course in the wild.
I'm not sure what you mean by "blame the dog" or "judge the dog". Dogs don't have free-will and rabid dogs doubly-so.
Is the imperative to facilitate a functioning society an axiom of yours?
It's a primary axiom of all humans who wish to contribute to the gene-pool.
I'm still not sure what you're asking.I think I gave a question earlier that might help you understand what I am saying.
Please try to be slightly more specific.
-->
@3RU7AL
In practice, does this "property right" provide an implicit right-to-privacy?
No. Only the property right is sustained. Take this for an example: my neighbor is an attractive woman. Our bedroom windows face each other. I happen to walk by said window when she's undressing in her bedroom. She notices my gaze and states, "you're violating my 'privacy'." She would be wrong. I am on my property and pointing my eyes in a particular direction. I have not violated anything--i.e. impaired her capacity to usus fructus and abusus. My staring merely makes her (understandably) uncomfortable. Now, as the bearer of the property right to her home and presumably the contents within it, she has every right to shut her blinds and/or curtains. She however cannot compel me to redirect my gaze as an extension of her "right to privacy." If I do comply, it's a courtesy, not of an extension of her right.
Violence.
Toward him? Where in that statement did he insinuate violence?
Not personally.
Then it's not a threat at all. The statement of intention to initiate physical harm is neither immediately tied nor embodied in the initiation of aggression.
Unknown.
Then it's not a threat at all. The statement of intention to initiate physical harm is neither immediately tied nor embodied in the initiation of aggression.
The apparently spontaneous personal interest and the direct reference to jury duty.
So?
Intimidate.
Intimidate with what exactly? Battery? Murder? Tax Fraud?
You're extending merely the reputation of Eugenne and arguing that his words are threatening without any solid connection. (While that makes for good drama, it doesn't necessarily convey anything.) Now if Eugene were to have encountered Danny and shot a man in front of him and afterwards stated "this man didn't do the 'right thing'" then Danny can presume he was threatened because he can then associate "the right thing" as a statement of intention to initiate aggression since the statement of "the right thing" is immediately tied and embodied in the initiation of aggression (the shooting of the aforementioned individual.)
-->
@3RU7AL
I was trying to ask how is a cog an individual?To illustrate how justice is still fully-functional in a hypothetically deterministic universe.
How do you define individual?
When you say "judge" and "blame" it strongly suggests there has been some level of infraction.
Outside morality. I am simply saying did x occur because of x's fault or because of something else.
It's a primary axiom of all humans who wish to contribute to the gene-pool.
Okay. I understand. My arguments are not referring to the axiom it is outside of it.
Please try to be slightly more specific.
You have already answered it.
I didn't respond to the dog part because I think I made my point more clear without it.