This is a test of my offensive Avatar Image

[MtnGoat]

"oh please. You are in serious need of introducing a little nuance in your thinking."

 

Nuances in this case do not change the elemental facts here. Do you deny you are criticizing my support for the use of proxies with weapons in Iraq? Do you deny my proxy actions are the direct result of my supporting same? I assume so. Then you can hardly deny *your* use of proxies and the threat they use to insure compliance, because we're both, at the bottom level, supporting proxy enforcement of our personal morals, using the same means.

 

"Being able to compare 2 things in one respect does not mean they are equivalent (it's not very good science by the way)."

 

No one said the intent of the policies themselves are the same. My intent is to stop someone else from taking my life, yours is to make a social change you find beneficial. Regardless of the policy, the means rest on the same basis, threatening people with the use of force.

 

That you wish to claim "nuance" makes your support of coecion different than mine is merely an element of the social view you wish to support which I do not agree with. Where the rubber meets the road, each of our proxies still threatens their respective targets.

 

Are you going to deny you support enforcement of laws you find beneficial?

 

"For example jaywalking and murder are comparable insofar as they are both against the rules interpreting the social contract, yet we agree they are not met with the same punishment because their impact on society is very different."

 

First off, we do not agree on what the nature of the "social contract" is. Secondly, murder takes the rights of another individual, jaywalking does not.

 

"yet I don't think you'd go as far associating yourselves with those cultures that compare stealing one's neighbors apples with murdering his children."

 

You are partially correct. In some situations theft of food is the same as murder, but since those are not prevelant in the US, I'd largely agree.

 

"So yes, I do feel entitled to having someone enforce laws for me yet I still feel that if you are calling for the death of thousands of individuals on either side of the fence you should be ready to vote with your feet (and I don't mean paying taxes)."

 

So why am *I* supposed to vote with my feet to aim guns at people, but when you want to do so, you are entitled not to?

 

Besides, since I am also calling for the protection of thousands of others, just as you claim to, this must be balanced with the idea that I am threatening thousands, just as you do. Just like you, if they give in to my coercion, they will not be harmed.

 

"In this case lower than the mean socio-economic status leads to a higher risk of loosing one's life."

 

And in this case they knowingly choose that risk balanced against their other values. Again individual judgement of values and risks is in place.

 

"do you have conclusive evidence as to their making threatening statements?"

 

The same evidence anyone ever has when investigating such incidences, the statement of a witness. If it is found to be false, it is found to be false. I have no investment in deciding this woman is a-priori correct, but I also have none deciding she is lying. This is what legal systems are for.

 

"no, yet you already concluded they were guilty and should pay in some fashion"

 

I have decided that given the woman's testimony to the police they should be investigated. Wether or not they should "pay" is determined solely by their guilt.

 

If we are not to allow initial evidence to determine what police will investigate, we will have no legal system. You seem to be demanding proof before any non sanctioning action can take place. These men have not been charged, they have not been convicted. They have undergone the same examination any citizen is at risk of, given statements provided by a witness.

 

"Ergo, you discard your high principles when you see fit."

 

Individuals are to be free of loss of rights without trial, not free of investigation of possible crimes.

 

"come on. You were justifying calling the law, not avoiding eye contact."

 

No, I asked you what you did in a situation with scary looking people you come in contact with. You claim looks should never make a difference, so I am asking you if this is the case in your life, not that of the men in FL.

[MtnGoat]

OK l_b, here's a list of questions, since you've been using not-answers as reasons for comment in threads. Time to be self consistent. Just thought I'd help you out a bit and get them ready for you.

 

1) Do you deny you are criticizing my support for the use of proxies with weapons in Iraq?

 

2) Do you deny my proxy actions are the direct result of my supporting same?

 

3) Are you going to deny you support enforcement of laws you find beneficial?

 

4) why am *I* supposed to vote with my feet to aim guns at people, but when you want to aim guns at people who do not with to comply with your ideas on hiring re affirmative action, you are entitled not to?

 

5) what element of threatening people with loss of their freedom is it you feel you are not doing, by supporting the enforcement of laws?

 

6) Do the laws you wish imposed on others, exist in some limbo where you support their enforcement but are not responsible for supporting the *actual* means enforcement uses?

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Hey, Goat - The Doctor means no disrespect, but do you write this kind of stuff down as you're posting, i.e. what questions you asked or what questions were asked of you? Or do you just have a capacious memory for infinitessima? Because the Doctor must admit, he can't remember half the shit you seem to in these little debates.

 

Interesting, is all.

[iain]

DFA that shit happened back between posts 151.01-173.60 get it together. So this is what it's like working in a patent office. That, or a spectator at a gripping hair-growing match.

[MtnGoat]

"Hey, Goat - The Doctor means no disrespect, but do you write this kind of stuff down as you're posting, i.e. what questions you asked or what questions were asked of you?"

 

No worries doc, you've always exhibited courtesy and I appreciate that, you don't go for the bogus "you've got an agenda" stuff, which doesn't hold much water since all have agendas, it's how we resolve and study them that make a difference.

 

All I do is read a persons post and try to answer questions posed in it using the text as a guide.

[sexual_chocolate]

"No worries doc, you've always exhibited courtesy and I appreciate that..."

 

Good Dog, Doc, are you gonna let 'im get away with that?!?!?

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Dr. Flash Amazing begs your pardon, sir, but DFA prides himself on being courteous and respectful at all times. Unless he's calling someone a worthless bag of snaffle jizz, in which case they probably deserve it anyway. Yeah.

[Dru]

how about ressurrecting this thread?

[iain]

heh