Just curious, do you two really consider me to be the dickwad, here?
i do.
Not that I care, but why?
I don't see what makes him a dickwad
(I didn't go through all the pages though)
a) his reply(it hurts me very deeply
)
If I thought you were capable of feeling emotions, I might believe you.
Great! now you don't even understand what lack of emphaty means.
You just getting stupider and stupider...
b) he can't see that NAP is inconsistent, and refuses to accept that a state can be a good choice. Explaining it with his "fact" about states, with that it kills people who chooses not to behave in a certain way, and then failing to see that the NAP does the same.
The difference being that a State kills people who have done no harm to others, and a NAP-respecting person only kills people in defense.
when they don't behave in a certain way, yes?
No. when they
DO behave in a certain way. As in aggression against me. If it's you or it's me, it's you. OTOH, if you leave me alone or respect my self, space and property, I'll never deliberately give you offense.
Now contrast that to the state which will cage you and/or kill you simply over some words on a page written by somebody with no ideas that didn't come from "above" and who fears change and loves power.
if it offends me, that you say that i can't commit an aggression against you, you have commited an aggression against me.
No. It doesn't. It offends you. Speech in public has no bearing on your actions, save what you make of it. Thoughts are not evil in themselves, and the transmission of them is how people are naturally equipped to interact. Aggression is ACTION, not speech.
Me, I prefer a layered approach to the NAP as a practical matter. In straight truth, while my philosophy is as above, I also hate killing. So I would, if you were attacking me, try to first control the situation. It would not be my GOAL to kill you, if I could dissuade you instead. And were I unable to dissuade you but gain the upper hand, I would disable you preferentially to killing you. If, OTOH, you get in my face and call me a cocksucker, I'll either say something back or walk away. No HARM done, only ruffled feathers. And harm is the crux of the argument. An it harm no one, do what thou wilt. That old rede is a good moral compass, as opposed to Mr. Crowley's counter "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". Anarchists generally choose the former, though with more modern formal language. States ALWAYS choose the latter, because the only check on their actions is how many people they can misdirect.
