Topic: Legitimate Threats, Legitimate Demands - page 3. (Read 5475 times)

Oooh classy!

I think, as is fast becoming your character.  You overstate your importance.  I suspect most people do.

Out of curiosity. Which names?  Small minded? Puerile? Violent?  Bigoted? Oh wait...you won't say.

See on one hand if I had some reasonably well-defined criteria for determining what would be "name calling" in your particular world-view.  Then I'd consider it but of course that would mean that you would have to have an adult discussion which to me - means not having to deal with the prima donna attitude of threatening to go take your ball and go home whenever you don't like my phrasing.  Of course if you could do that...

Instead you offer me something that no responsible person could accept.  I haven't the slightest idea (other than the exceptionally mild, almost child-like cajole "jerky") what you consider "name calling") so I suspect you know that someone who has some degree of integrity isn't going to agree to something if it's unclear if they can follow through.   So this seems just a way to avoid arguments you find uncomfortable.  After all, you clearly have no problem calling other people names - at least things I consider names.  Perhaps "idiot" is not name calling to you.  If so then you'll love my next point.

So what if those things I mentioned above are not simple invective but actual demonstrable facets of your personality?  What if I could show an example from your own text for each and every one.  Several examples in fact?

Not interested?  Didn't think so.

Hey I fully respect your right to close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears.  Heck throw yourself on the ground and thrash around if you want to complete the image but perhaps this isn't about name calling.  Perhaps it's about uncomfortable truths?

But hey, it's obvious you read my posts and I get to respond to your posts without having to deal with your poor understanding of logic* and your hyper-inflated sense of self.   So either way works for me.

I'm glad we had this talk.   (Yeah, I know you read me!)

*_{Such as saying that you'll ONLY take me off ignore if I stop calling you names.  For which, you would have to take me off ignore (or something equivalent like view the page while not logged in.  Hopefully you're not that crazy.}

Are you familiar with the concept of a homeowner's association and the association dues that are payable by its residents? I'm sure you are. I'm more than willing to have an in depth discussion with you about it. Feel free to start a thread on it, or we can discuss it here, but it could derail the thread.

The only way I'll remove you from ignore is if you promise to stop calling me names. In other words, welcome to permanent ignore.

I already commented on that...well that you were being puerile anyway.

I completely don't get why you and everyone wants to play dictionary word games.

I realize that you call yourself a philosopher and by virtue of that you should know this but often Logicians and Philosophers need to talk about something in a very restricted way.  Often that's the only way they can "get work done".  Since it's very difficult to talk about everything a word connotes*  So you construct a definition.

For example the first line in Aristotle's De Interpretatione (in Latin considering how people here like to fling it around like so much monkey poop) is as follows: First we must define the terms 'noun' and 'verb', then the terms 'denial' and 'affirmation', then 'proposition' and 'sentence.'  He goes on to define these terms. 

I'd submit that it doesn't matter how one defines their term as long as they disclose what the definition is.  Bitcoin2cash can define his terms any way s/he wants.  S/he can say that "demand" means "violently" or "not violent" or "fruit bat".   Now sure that gives him/her the opportunity to use a uncommon definition but it doesn't really matter.  Because that will in turn restrict what conclusions s/he draws.

i.e. I want to argue that pool hopping is unethical.   So I'll define the term "pool" to mean "a place where it is unethical to hop"**.  Now this, of course makes it easy to produce a syllogism which is valid but it hugely restricts the applicability of the argument.  In this case the only pools which are unethical to hop are the ones for which it is unethical to hop.  Which is what we call "begging the question" - the arguer has assumed her conclusion.

The only place where using the dictionary makes any sense is to show that a person is using a term in an uncommon sense in which case the arguer should provide a definition.  Attempting to use the dictionary to pretend that their definition isn't valid*** is silly.  Lots of words can refer to concepts not found in the dictionary.  Not only that but the arguer can just create a new word as a referent to his/her idea.

I feel like I should start a thread called: "How to argue" because while people like bitcoin2cash, JoelKatz, FredreicBAsshat,BCEmporium are all borderline crazy.   Their crazy might be shut down more quickly if the root of their argument could be identified and killed.  Instead of spending a lot of time on peripheral matters.

Apologies if that was preachy.

*_{A good example of this is my conversation with JoelKatz about pollution.  Joel was barely able to say anything about what was or was not pollution which might be due to his belief that he had no useful definition of his term 'pollution' or 'optimum'.  It's of course possible that Joel was being strategic i.e. he believed that by exposing his definition that would allow me to attack his argument (which would be correct).}
**_{Interestingly enough I suspect that if JoelKatz would ever decide to actually define his terms about this.  His argument would probably break down similarly.}
***_{I think bitcoin2cash did this exact thing in one of our first discussions.}

Yes, we agree that your arguments over definitions are puerile. You know what I mean. I've made it abundantly clear.

I'll stop first then - we seem to have reached agreement

It's the second definition in the dictionary. It's not removed from common usage at all. I've already used an extremely common example, workers going on strike until their demands are met. I really can't see the point of arguing about this. It's puerile.

"You have the right to kill yourself. Therefore, it is legitimate for me to demand that you kill yourself."

Your "demand" is simply "asking".  The taxman's demand is that and a lot more.  I wonder why you chose the word when the meaning you meant is so removed from its common usage.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/demand

That's how I'm using "demand". If you don't like it then you'll just have to get over it.

You see, the difference is that Government really can make a demand for taxes and can legitimately imprison you if you refuse to pay.  Not a forceful request - a demand.  It comes with a letter saying "We'll send thugs in uniforms to kidnap you if you don't comply."

That's why your original post is wrong headed.  You used the word "demand" when you meant "forceful request." 

You don't understand. They can send a strongly worded letter. That's all.

"Pay us now. All of it. Without fail."

Forceful doesn't mean they can say "We'll send thugs in uniforms to kidnap you if you don't comply." You are focusing on the legitimacy of demands but failing to keep in mind the legitimacy of threats. Other people can't legitimately initiate violence against me therefore they can't legitimately threaten to initiate violence against me.

Even my exceptionally limited understanding of bitcoin2cash's tiny, bigoted and oft times violent mind I'd say that what he probably meant was something along the lines of "If person X has the right to do Y therefore person X has the right to threaten to do Y".   I think he gave some examples about leaving the room and such.

However I would maintain that in my above form Bitcoin2cash's statement, unless s/he provides further definition as to what "has the right to threaten" means is already disproved.  As there are a number of things where the thought of which is acceptable but the expression of which is not.  i.e. It is legal (and to some extent acceptable) for Bitcoin2cash to contemplate the ways he could murder a shopkeeper for not giving a refund.  However it is generally not acceptable for him to threaten that.  i.e. "If you don't give me a refund I will start thinking about ways to murder you" is probably indistinguishable (by people and the courts) as a death threat.

I agree though we all shrug our shoulders as to why bitcoin2cash thinks his statement is so profound.  Which probably inflates his already too large ego on this subject.

Let's take a moment and substitute some real world terms into your assertion. For example:

You have the right to pay a portion of your income to the government. Therefore, it is legitimate for the government to demand that you pay a portion of your income to the government.

I personally wouldn't make the original assertion, but you have, therefore we can conclude that you would deem it fair that the government demands that you pay taxes.

Further on, you state:


By substituting the term demand with your clarified meaning of it, we can conclude that you believe the following to be acceptable, fair and reasonable:

You have the right to pay a portion of your income to the government. Therefore, it is legitimate for the government to make a "forceful and insistent request" that you pay a portion of your income to the government.

Now that we have a fair synopsis of the point that you are trying to make in this thread (admittedly, we were all at a bit of a loss as to what you meant), we can see how absurd and inconsistently you choose to apply your philosophy to life.

No, I'm not. You're an idiot. Consider yourself ignored.

Well let's see what forceful means...






Hmm.... so what is "force" in this context?

Quote

3

: violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing

 

Ah, we have arrived at your other magical word: violence.



So you're saying that if I have a right to do something, you have a right to violently compel me to do it.


And what is your supporting argument for this?

I said forceful, as in tone, not force. Fail.

So you would forcefully and insistently request that someone goes for a walk.  Fine.