By your logic a sharpened pencil is a weapon
Stop avoiding the main issue; if I do prove that a nuke is a threat to me regardless of whether the owner intends violence, are you happy to recognise that we have a right to ban possession of nukes?
Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 84. (Read 105875 times)
By your logic a sharpened pencil is a weapon
Stop avoiding the main issue; if I do prove that a nuke is a threat to me regardless of whether the owner intends violence, are you happy to recognise that we have a right to ban possession of nukes?
There is no lie. Your own text shows you to be happy to have innocents killed.
By all means ignore me. You acknowledge that regulating materials works. You don't actually care about the consequence of not regulating them. I do. We won't agree.
What you are describing is a society in which people are being killed. A society where they know how they can save their own lives. Regulating materials will save them. But your strange ideology means they "shouldn't" do it. They should die.
Not nice.
By all means ignore me. You acknowledge that regulating materials works. You don't actually care about the consequence of not regulating them. I do. We won't agree.
What you are describing is a society in which people are being killed. A society where they know how they can save their own lives. Regulating materials will save them. But your strange ideology means they "shouldn't" do it. They should die.
Not nice.
Liar again. I pointed out your lies. Redact them, or admit you have nothing more to add other than ad hominem.
Point to the lie and I will happily redact it. All I see is that thousands of people are alive today as a result of regulating fertiliser sales, you say we should not regulate them so its logical to say that you prefer unregulated fertiliser sales to human lives.
Please correct me...tell me its good those people are alive and that the regulation is good because it saves lives.
Ahhhhhhhhhhh, AT LAST, we realize that it was Fergalish's, and Hawker's sole intent to annoy Freddy. They weren't interested in logic or reason, law or justice, just annoy and chide... Haaaaa Haaaa. It was just a joke. You really are Libertarians in Socialist clothes. Ahhh, funny, *busting a gut* now.
How "Feraglishisly Absurd" and "Hawkishly Annoying"
How "Feraglishisly Absurd" and "Hawkishly Annoying"
If everyone was willing to accept that everytime you get in your car, you have to bring along a chain of drivers licences, one for each road you drive along, and everytime you enter in a shop, you have to read it's full terms and conditions, and so on, then "protecting business" might actually work as a method of avoiding conflict - in other words, there would have to be a contract governing every single interaction between people and businesses, specifying all possible outcomes of that interaction, and all compensations to be paid for each of those outcomes (so you'd have to put a monetary value on the life of your child, should a heavy box fall on him).
So, if we're willing to accept such an absurdity, then yes, "business prevails" logically follows as a violence inhibitor.
So, if we're willing to accept such an absurdity, then yes, "business prevails" logically follows as a violence inhibitor.
Even then it doesn't work because there's no governing body forcing anything to abide by those agreements. There's no point it given him the benefit of a doubt that all interactions are covered by contracts and therefore will go smoothly, because contracts without a centralized governing body to enforce them mean absolutely jack shit.
I sign a contract with you that says if your kid gets hurt in my store, I'll pay all the medical bills.
Sure enough, your kid gets hurt in my store.
You come and ask for money for the medical bills.
I laugh in your face and tell you pound sand - "make me pay out".
Your only option is to resort to violence to hold me to the contract.
There's just no way around it. It's the nature of our world. Violence will always be the ultimate decider of whose ideas prevail. This is why we have a centralized, democratic government that holds the biggest gun, and we all contribute to it to make mutually benefitial rules that we all agree to live by. Without that centralized power, the man with the biggest gun will make ALL the rules, all by himself.
Now you're just being freakishly absurd. Should we have nuclear weapons if they can be detonated when anybody accidentally sneezes too? If I rolled my eyes any harder, they'd get lost in the back of my head.
The problem with this line of argumentation, is that the second I concede (I won't), you can immediately justify regulating any object or compound as long as it can be proven to be potentially dangerous in at least one case, hypothetical or otherwise.
One more nail in the coffin of Liberty, six more feet under the thumb of Totalitarianism. I ain't buying, so stop trying to sell me.
The problem with this line of argumentation, is that the second I concede (I won't), you can immediately justify regulating any object or compound as long as it can be proven to be potentially dangerous in at least one case, hypothetical or otherwise.
One more nail in the coffin of Liberty, six more feet under the thumb of Totalitarianism. I ain't buying, so stop trying to sell me.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, AT LAST, Fred reaches his limit. But, just for pride, he won't concede the point.
You know, you're absolutely right, I am being freakishly absurd. In *my* opinion, *you* started being freakishly absurd a long long time ago (imagine! any Joe Public being allowed to handle nukes!). And that's the crux of the problem. Everybody draws their own absurd line.
How's about this:
If I am obliged to allow you to bring your normal nuclear weapon into a crowded city, even though I consider it to be extremely risky and hazardous, are you then obliged to allow some crackpot umbrella-maker to bring his raindrop-triggered nuclear weapon into the city, even though *you* consider *that* to be extremely risky and hazardous?
If I can't legitimately stop you, then you can't legitimately stop him. Correct or incorrect? Actually, let me rephrase that: logically consistent, or logically inconsistent?
edit: To put it another way: is "freakishly absurd" just how *you* define it, or should we come up with a common definition that we all can understand and agree with?
The problem with this line of argumentation, is that the second I concede (I won't), you can immediately justify regulating any object or compound as long as it can be proven to be potentially dangerous in at least one case, hypothetical or otherwise.
Why would you think such an idiotic thought? The goal is (and has always been) to regulate and/or prevent the ownership of the key components that allow the construction of said offending WMDs, and additionally, regulate the construction or manufacturing of said WMDs.
Why would we want to regulate the possession of stainless steel, which is almost certainly a component, but not the defining component?
Fred, you've lost. You've said you'd prefer a nuclear wasteland to infringing a single person's rights. You've said people can't act until they establish intent. You've said it's not possible to establish intent with an unknown assailant. You've said people can't prohibit dangerous goods even when they know there are such people as would use them violently. For you, the right to hold any arbitrarily dangerous item supersedes the right to life.
Am I entitled to hold a nuclear weapon in a city, that is detonated should a drop of liquid fall anywhere on its surface? Assume I legitimately acquired all the raw materials to manufacture such a device, and my intent is merely to show how much faith I have in the umbrellas manufactured by my factory.
Am I entitled to hold a nuclear weapon in a city, that is detonated should a drop of liquid fall anywhere on its surface? Assume I legitimately acquired all the raw materials to manufacture such a device, and my intent is merely to show how much faith I have in the umbrellas manufactured by my factory.
Now you're just being freakishly absurd. Should we have nuclear weapons if they can be detonated when anybody accidentally sneezes too? If I rolled my eyes any harder, they'd get lost in the back of my head.
The problem with this line of argumentation, is that the second I concede (I won't), you can immediately justify regulating any object or compound as long as it can be proven to be potentially dangerous in at least one case, hypothetical or otherwise.
One more nail in the coffin of Liberty, six more feet under the thumb of Totalitarianism. I ain't buying, so stop trying to sell me.
Please Please answer this question.
If anti violence vaccine would be discovered would you want a law to force everybody to take it?
Please .
If anti violence vaccine would be discovered would you want a law to force everybody to take it?
Please .
Nope.
Just so you know, you lost this argument a long time ago. You know it. We know it. You can continue to put up a show if you want, be we all know that when you go to bed at night, you're well aware that your arguments have failed.
Was this the argument where you shoot first and ask questions later, in contradistinction to where I preferred to determine intent first? Why are you so against measuring motive or intent as necessary precursors to violent retaliation?
Why would I be against measuring motive or intent? I'm simply saying it's not a comprehensive solution.
Let me try to reduce this to the minimum:
Question 1: Yes. Question 2: It depends. Who owns the room?- Do I, or do I not, have the right to immediately defend myself, with mortal violence if necessary, as soon as I perceive a threat to my life?
- Do you, or do you not, have the right to carry a gun into a room where you and I are discussing the solution to a mutual conflict?
I'm blue in the face trying to explain to you that SOMETIMES there would be interactions between people and/or businesses that would not be governed by the clauses of a contract.
There is no lie. Your own text shows you to be happy to have innocents killed.
By all means ignore me. You acknowledge that regulating materials works. You don't actually care about the consequence of not regulating them. I do. We won't agree.
What you are describing is a society in which people are being killed. A society where they know how they can save their own lives. Regulating materials will save them. But your strange ideology means they "shouldn't" do it. They should die.
Not nice.
By all means ignore me. You acknowledge that regulating materials works. You don't actually care about the consequence of not regulating them. I do. We won't agree.
What you are describing is a society in which people are being killed. A society where they know how they can save their own lives. Regulating materials will save them. But your strange ideology means they "shouldn't" do it. They should die.
Not nice.
Liar again. I pointed out your lies. Redact them, or admit you have nothing more to add other than ad hominem.
Am I entitled to hold a nuclear weapon in a city, that is detonated should a drop of liquid fall anywhere on its surface? Assume I legitimately acquired all the raw materials to manufacture such a device, and my intent is merely to show how much faith I have in the umbrellas manufactured by my factory.
EDIT: AND the city does not prohibit possession of nuclear weapons.
So, in the libertarian world you are advocating, the rule is "if someone establishes that another intends to do him harm, he is entitled to immediately defend himself; through violence if necessary". You then stated that observation is necessary to determine a person's intent, but you admit that this is not always possible, and also that it is subjective. Let me repeat myself:
Let me try to reduce this to the minimum:
Let me try to reduce this to the minimum:
- Do I, or do I not, have the right to immediately defend myself, with mortal violence if necessary, as soon as I perceive a threat to my life?
- Do you, or do you not, have the right to carry a gun into a room where you and I are discussing the solution to a mutual conflict?
Question 1: Yes. Question 2: It depends. Who owns the room?
Quote
edit: the sun example was not necessary. It was pathetic. FirstAscent asked you a legitimate question, you replied with an absurdity.
Here's the original quote:
Quote from: FirstAscent
Tell me how you measure intent of some individual that you have never met, nor even know exists?
The answer is there is nothing to measure. It's nearly equivalent to asking what to do when you don't have anything to act upon.
I know the sun example was obvious, but nevertheless necessary. I was asked whether I could respond to an unknown event, caused by an unknown assailant, that hadn't happened yet, or that didn't exist. How exactly would anybody respond to such nonsense. If you read my response, you would have noticed that observation is the key to determining intent, just like indirect observation of the suns emissions is one indication that the sun is hot. It's a corollary, and an obvious one at that. Sorry for the crushing simplicity of it.
So, in the libertarian world you are advocating, the rule is "if someone establishes that another intends to do him harm, he is entitled to immediately defend himself; through violence if necessary". You then stated that observation is necessary to determine a person's intent, but you admit that this is not always possible, and also that it is subjective. Let me repeat myself:
In case you hadn't noticed, you've been trapped you into contradicting yourself even though I specifically drew your attention to your previous relevant statement.
Let me try to reduce this to the minimum:- Do I, or do I not, have the right to immediately defend myself, with mortal violence if necessary, as soon as I perceive a threat to my life?
- Do you, or do you not, have the right to carry a gun into a room where you and I are discussing the solution to a mutual conflict?
edit: the sun example was not necessary. It was pathetic. FirstAscent asked you a legitimate question, you replied with an absurdity.
There is no lie. Your own text shows you to be happy to have innocents killed.
By all means ignore me. You acknowledge that regulating materials works. You don't actually care about the consequence of not regulating them. I do. We won't agree.
What you are describing is a society in which people are being killed. A society where they know how they can save their own lives. Regulating materials will save them. But your strange ideology means they "shouldn't" do it. They should die.
Not nice.
By all means ignore me. You acknowledge that regulating materials works. You don't actually care about the consequence of not regulating them. I do. We won't agree.
What you are describing is a society in which people are being killed. A society where they know how they can save their own lives. Regulating materials will save them. But your strange ideology means they "shouldn't" do it. They should die.
Not nice.
Liar again. I pointed out your lies. Redact them, or admit you have nothing more to add other than ad hominem.
Now, my question to you is this; if I do prove that a nuke is a threat to me regardless of whether the owner intends violence, are you happy to recognise that we have a right to ban possession of nukes?
No ...(don't try to read in between the lines)... No.
...snip...
OK - you believe that even when I have proven there is a threat, the potential victim has to wait for their fate.
You didn't prove threat. You attempted to equate danger with threat. Nuclear materials, gasoline, semtex, bullets, guns, kitchen knives, and cigarretts are all potentially dangerous. How you act while using them represents a possible threat.
The question was if I do prove that a nuke is a threat to me regardless of whether the owner intends violence, are you happy to recognise that we have a right to ban possession of nukes?
The answer was no. As with fertiliser, you prefer the freedom on the bomb maker to the lives of the victims. No matter how you wriggle, the system you want is one in which the bombs gets made and the victim dies.
Its not inspiring. You want public services but don't want to pay for them. You want people who are perfectly able to protect themselves to stop doing so and facilitate their own deaths. You don't want people to have movies.
Tell me something nice about your utopia. Or is it all crap?
Now, my question to you is this; if I do prove that a nuke is a threat to me regardless of whether the owner intends violence, are you happy to recognise that we have a right to ban possession of nukes?
No ...(don't try to read in between the lines)... No.
...snip...
OK - you believe that even when I have proven there is a threat, the potential victim has to wait for their fate.
You didn't prove threat. You attempted to equate danger with threat. Nuclear materials, gasoline, semtex, bullets, guns, kitchen knives, and cigarretts are all potentially dangerous. How you act while using them represents a possible threat.
So your first response is that we should wait until the crime takes place, the victims are dead and the killer put on trial. Are you aware that in Ireland we have special jury less trials because the IRA killed jurors who convicted them? And that there are no witnesses? Its too dangerous - a witness would have to leave the country. Real world law 102.
Your second response is that regulating materials doesn't work.
Wrong! It has worked for 40 years. We don't need to debate this - a quick look at the history of the UVF tells you that the year fertiliser was regulated was the year they stopped their major bombings.
Who cares about criminal intent? Possession means DANGER and we have a right to protect ourselves. Regulating material is proven to work. Do you feel that the people who are alive today as a result of regulating fertiliser sales don't deserve to be alive? Because in Ireland alone, thats a few thousand people.
Your second response is that regulating materials doesn't work.
Wrong! It has worked for 40 years. We don't need to debate this - a quick look at the history of the UVF tells you that the year fertiliser was regulated was the year they stopped their major bombings.
Who cares about criminal intent? Possession means DANGER and we have a right to protect ourselves. Regulating material is proven to work. Do you feel that the people who are alive today as a result of regulating fertiliser sales don't deserve to be alive? Because in Ireland alone, thats a few thousand people.
Again, to put it bluntly, you lie. I did not say that "we should wait until the crime takes place". If you put words in my mouth one more time I will ignore you.
In response to your "regulating materials works" law theory. Of course it works, but you should't do it. I could wipe out my entire neighborhood and I'd be a lot safer (no people, less danger), but that wouldn't be the lawful, just, and fair thing to do.
There is no lie. Your own text shows you to be happy to have innocents killed.
By all means ignore me. You acknowledge that regulating materials works. You don't actually care about the consequence of not regulating them. I do. We won't agree.
What you are describing is a society in which people are being killed. A society where they know how they can save their own lives. Regulating materials will save them. But your strange ideology means they "shouldn't" do it. They should die.
Not nice.
So your first response is that we should wait until the crime takes place, the victims are dead and the killer put on trial. Are you aware that in Ireland we have special jury less trials because the IRA killed jurors who convicted them? And that there are no witnesses? Its too dangerous - a witness would have to leave the country. Real world law 102.
Your second response is that regulating materials doesn't work.
Wrong! It has worked for 40 years. We don't need to debate this - a quick look at the history of the UVF tells you that the year fertiliser was regulated was the year they stopped their major bombings.
Who cares about criminal intent? Possession means DANGER and we have a right to protect ourselves. Regulating material is proven to work. Do you feel that the people who are alive today as a result of regulating fertiliser sales don't deserve to be alive? Because in Ireland alone, thats a few thousand people.
Your second response is that regulating materials doesn't work.
Wrong! It has worked for 40 years. We don't need to debate this - a quick look at the history of the UVF tells you that the year fertiliser was regulated was the year they stopped their major bombings.
Who cares about criminal intent? Possession means DANGER and we have a right to protect ourselves. Regulating material is proven to work. Do you feel that the people who are alive today as a result of regulating fertiliser sales don't deserve to be alive? Because in Ireland alone, thats a few thousand people.
Again, to put it bluntly, you lie. I did not say that "we should wait until the crime takes place". If you put words in my mouth one more time I will ignore you.
In response to your "regulating materials works" law theory. Of course it works, but you should't do it. I could wipe out my entire neighborhood and I'd be a lot safer (no people, less danger), but that wouldn't be the lawful, just, and fair thing to do.
Now, my question to you is this; if I do prove that a nuke is a threat to me regardless of whether the owner intends violence, are you happy to recognise that we have a right to ban possession of nukes?
No ...(don't try to read in between the lines)... No.
...snip...
OK - you believe that even when I have proven there is a threat, the potential victim has to wait for their fate.
Jump to: