Massacre in Connecticut - Page 23

It's ironic that it's actually social Darwinism that is sealing the fate of the Republicans. As New York and California become more and more liberal with each passing year, the red states are in a dying trend. Mark my words. In 20 years, Texas will be a blue state and it will all be over.

It's not a straw man. As a (presumably) intelligent person, when the government comes to get you, MJ, do you honestly think any gun is going to protect you? Even so, is that the right thing to do?

So now you like "social Darwinism" because it promises to achieve the Utopian America that you dream of (but won't actually live in)? Why am I not surprised at all.

 

It is a straw man. I wasn't even thinking of defending one's self against the government. I was thinking of normal personal defense. You simply assumed the other part, stood that up and knocked it down.

 

That said, a free people should be generally armed (and with the same level of armaments as their government) to be able to defend themselves should that government turn rogue and turn on them. That's just plainly obvious.

 

P.S. Yes, if someone has made the decision to attack or threaten an attack on me, it is the right thing to do to defend myself, with a firearm and with deadly force if necessary and warranted given the circumstance. Absolutely. In fact, if someone was equipped and had that attitude in Newtown or in Aurora (or wherever else you mention) there may have been fewer victims.

Is that a good idea? I quote your earlier post, "Good ideas don't require force." So were you wrong then, or are you wrong now?

So you admit you think everyone should be able to own an ICBM with a nuclear warhead?

I think it was Jazzy who posted that--he's the one who tends to do drive-by posts of images and quotes that distill MJ's longwinded diatribes into pithy soundbites.

Yeah, I often mix up the two, forgetting that Jazzy is the one who oversimplifies and never backs up his arguments with deductive reasoning. Wait a minute. That describes them both. Jazzy is the one who oversimplifies and never backs up his arguments with deductive reasoning or any references whatsoever. MJ is the one who oversimplifies and never backs up his arguments with deductive reasoning, but instead sends us a link to a 30 page essay that contains no deductive reasoning, and calls us stupid for not "understanding" the "facts" of what the essay concludes.

Who said I liked social Darwinism?

 

First, that was jazz. Try to keep up.

 

Second, you are confused by what we mean by using initiative force vs. defense. I don't know if this confusion is accidental, from ignorance or intentional and simply trolling.

 

I assumed you'd understand the difference between a person (or group of persons) initiating force and violence against another person (or group) to achieve some goal (take money, make them do something they would not do voluntarily, etc.) and a person (or group) defending themselves against such aggression.

 

I guess I was wrong.

 

Until you understand the difference between these two things, there's not much more I can say.

I see from your additional posts that you and BR are engaging in a game of ad hominem table tennis wherein you complain that we either don't post enough or post too much (want to get your complaint about me straight?!) instead of actually addressing real points. Typical.

Yes I know the difference, thanks. But Jazzy's post failed to make that distinction.

You never post too much. At least nothing that's based on deductive reasoning anyway. Plenty of conjecture and unsupported babbling (even from your links which are simply conjecture and unsupported theory), however.

 

Do I recall correctly that you don't own a firearm?

 

Correct, I do not.

 

So kind of you to share your opinion about my posts. Now we can move on.

 

The distinction between initiative/aggressive/coercive force and defensive force? Perhaps his post did not. But, I suspect you're playing dumb here. I think he's been very clear about what it mean by the use of force overall. You, on the other hand, have deliberately tried to confuse the concepts of aggression/initiative force and defensive force to further your claims that you can "prove" that the NAP doesn't work.

 

So why not, since you state it to be obvious that the population should be armed equivalently to the government? At least a modest firearm would seem to be indicated, even if you don't progress to the heavy armaments that the government has at its disposal.

 

Because I have not had the resources (both time and money) to do so to my own personal level of satisfaction. More succinctly, I would feel most comfortable if I had full (and regular) training and practice in their use. I have not committed the resources to doing so, so I've chosen to not own them at this time. Though I may invest in some pistol training and practice for myself and my wife soon. We recently attended a CCW class and will likely apply for a concealed-carry permit also.

 

Not at all. I did prove that it doesn't work, in that a murderer or thief can murder or thieve with impunity, knowing that without a direct witness, he can simply decline respectfully to be tried, decline respectfully to give DNA evidence or fingerprints, and leave town any time he wishes without any fear of being detained to face charges.

 

If that scenario is okay with you, then I really don't have anything else to say on the matter.
 

 

It must be wonderful to live in a world where you simply get to declare that you have proven whatever you think you have proven.

What on earth are you talking about? FFS I just explained it again. I'm not declaring that I proved it just to say so. I actually proved it and now you're in denial.

If I didn't actually prove it than what do you disagree with with regard to my above post?

There were no witnesses. How can you question, try, or test the suspect without breaking the NAS? So he ignores you, denies guilt and walks away.

Or do you think every crime can be provable without DNA, without fingerprints, without the suspect present at a trial to answer to charges?

Remember, you cannot conclude that he's guilty just because he doesn't want to cooperate. That amounts to the same thing as force.

The gun nuts were up in AR15's recently over the ban on clips holding over a few bullets. They demonstrated how silly the law is by showing a very well trained shooter firing off his handgun and reloading it with a fresh clip in no time. Doesn't that beg the question, why are they so worried about the law then?

 

I'm talking about that fact that you are merely claiming you have proven something but not actually have done so.

 

 

 

Let's start with the simple fact that you claimed you could "prove" the NAP was not workable, then outlined a single (rather contrived) example as your so-called "proof." while late evading using that as your single standard for judging the total effectiveness of a system of social organization because you know no system is perfect even in regard to your example, yet you are attempting to hold the NAP to a standard of perfection while giving your preferred system a pass on the same example. Even in that example you did not prove that justice and punishment would not be completely achieved, only that it might be more difficult or take longer to do so or might not happen in the same way it does in our system today.

 

Bottom line is that you have not "proven" that the NAP is unworkable, only that, in some cases (and certainly not in all) it might not be able to achieve justice. This is essentially a straw man (the claim of perfect, 100% justice for every crime) you're arguing against.

"In some cases"? In every case where the perp hasn't been caught red handed and decides he doesn't want to go to jail, more like.

 

Yes.

 

 

 

So you claim. You also ignore the possibility, even probability that justice may be served in other ways that don't necessarily involve caging someone in a state-controlled cell.

 

 

Just admit that you've come no where near a reasonable level of proof and deductive reasoning to make the claim that you have proven that the NAP won't work.

We're not talking perfection. We're not even close. Using the NAP as the only law, the outcome wouldn't even be a Picasso portrait of justice.

I've given a clear example of how easy it would be for a murderer or thief to avoid justice.

Please do tell. How do you bring the thief to justice in my case? How can you be sure justice has been carried out? How can you be sure the one finally convicted hasn't been wrongly convicted?

 

When you actually prove that, then we can talk more.

I have indeed showed an example of how easy it would be for someone to walk away from a crime. Your denial doesn't change that.

And just admit it. You don't want to answer my question about how justice would be brought (your claim that it could be done) because you haven't thought that far ahead. You can't answer the question.

 

Clever what you did right there. You've shrunk the claim from proving that the NAP can't/won't work to showing one example of someone escaping justice. All the while ignoring that people escape justice all the time in our present system of social organization but not holding that system to the same standard, instead holding the NAP to a standard of perfection it doesn't even claim for itself. Nice work.

People who escape justice in our society don't do it with anywhere near the ease with which they would under NAP. That is clear.

I've shown one example. I could show a hundred, but it's futile. Yet... It's still one more example than the number you've given to counter. It's an example that you have yet to disprove (and couldn't).

 

No it isn't clear at all.

 

 

 

But I don't really have to. Because doing so engages in your straw man. No one, me included, claims that the NAP would lead to a perfect society in which justice is always served in every case. That's simply a straw man you've constructed to argue against.

Planning the perfect crime under the rule of law:
1. Leave absolutely no evidence.
2. Establish a perfect alibi.
(Easier said than done)

Planning the perfect crime under NAP:
1. Say "I didn't do it" and refuse to cooperate with any investigation.

Yeah, you're right. It's not at all clear that that's easier. Riight. You refuse to give an example because you "don't have to". Not at all because you can't.

 

My turn now: 

 

Yes, it's that way because you say it's that way.

 

 

 

 No...it's because I'm not going to argue in defense of your straw man. That's the point here.

 

I can't believe that you are putting up such a poor defense of NAP. Especially after I said that you would win this argument easily. Do you need some assistance?

 

By not defending a straw man?! 

 

 

 

How cute. The only assistance I need is more hours in the day (to be able to waste engaging in this BS).

Explain how tonton's example is a strawman.  Explain why you think he's wrong.  So far all I see are reasonable counterexamples to NAP's effectiveness and you crying strawman without any additional defense.  

 

No - tonton presented a credible (though refutable) counterexample argument, and you completely failed even to try to refute it, choosing to refuse to engage the substance and argue semantics instead.

 

Bullshit. His whole claim is based on the idea that proponents of the NAP are claiming a perfect justice world with the NAP. No one is claiming that what he presented could not happen. That's a straw man. Sure that can happen. It even happens now. He also claims that this point "proves" why the NAP "won't work." He hasn't presented anything worth trying to refute...because there's nothing to refute here.