Topic: Legitimate Threats, Legitimate Demands - page 4. (Read 5511 times)

I don't know if English is your first language but a "demand" implies something slightly different than a "request". When a bunch of workers go on strike, they make "demands" not "requests". Simply making a request implies timidness and that being told "no" is slightly more satisfactory than would be the case if an outright demand were made. However, I would accept the substitution of "demand" as a "forceful and insistent request" if that will help you understand my point better.

So by demand you mean ask without authority or simply ask.  Why not say ask then?

It says "especially with authority". It doesn't say "only with authority".

Hmm....did we move to the term "demand" now?  I tend to avoid checking this board on weekends.

  Well if by "demand" we mean a specific sense of the word where authority to ask and the persons duty to perform is already implied.  Then of course bitcoin2cash is correct but that's trivial and means that his claim in the "mile -> inch" department isn't as strong as he would think (maybe that's what you are getting at and you are getting entertained by the fact that bitcoin2cash is missing it? ).

  However if we go back to using "threat" which does not imply authority to ask or the duty to perform.   Then we need to fall on to definitions of some of the other terms (which I brought up earlier ).   For example, if "legitimate" means or contains the term "legal" (in some reasonable jurisdiction).  Then there appears to be a whole class of "rights to do" for which one has no "right to threaten".   That would be set where the "right to think" is legally in conflict with the "right to express".  i.e. It could be argued that bitcoin2cash has the "right" to contemplate my death - even plan it mentally in detail -  however there are a lot of contexts where s/he is absolutely restricted from expressing that because it would be difficult to distinguish.  Can you imagine telling a shopkeeper?  "If you don't give me a refund I'll start thinking about ways to kill you!"

So outside of the case which you have identified I think we can call bitcoin2cash's point disproved.

I hope that I have contributed - in an albeit humble way - to elevating the intellectual content of this board.  Which you have, quite rightly noticed is lacking. 

Of course he does.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demand

a : an act of demanding or asking especially with authority b : something claimed as due

He has the right to go for a walk.  You don't have authority to tell him to walk and you have no valid claim on his walking rights.  So you can't demand it.

You have not presented an argument for it.

So you disagree with that?

Demands and threats seem like close cousins, but maybe an example might make sense of things.

Example 1:
I write on a piece of paper stating that I demand that you kill yourself and then mail it to you. I live on the other side of the planet. This demand would appear to be legitimate, but only so because the immediacy of the threat, if there is any, is not particularly apparent.

Example 2:
I stand inches away from your face and demand that you kill yourself. Hmm... well that appears to be a different animal altogether. The circumstances are not the same. The threat is very apparent and could be perceived (misinterpreted violent intentions??) to be very real if not imminent (your impending doom).

I would like to assume you have an inherent right to defend yourself against such threats of violence, or appearances thereto if necessary. What's the goal? What's your end-game? You can use different words in numerous contexts and mean many different things.

In the end, applying violence requires much effort, but threatening violence does not, and achieves much in the way of achieving some means to an end. That end typically is to extricate your property from you and transfer it to the "manipulator" -via perceived threats of violence and coercion.

If the outcome achieves some deviant end, then it matters little the use of the words themselves. Perhaps demand should be substituted for profusely and energetically, but politely, ask. That way we don't confuse acts of potential violence for hyperactive requests.

I just explained why your "principle" doesn't mean a damn thing.  


If a feather weighed 1,000lbs., then it would be heavier than a cubic inch of lead.

If gravity didn't exist, then I would be able to float.

If my Civic ran 11's, then it'd be faster than a Viper.



All logically correctly, but totally irrelevant in the real world.



Additionally, you have done nothing to prove the idea that simply because I have a right to do something, you have a right to demand that I do it.  You have not proved your statements of what is "legitimate".

Furthermore, you have not even bothered to discuss what constitutes a "right".


This is why I keep saying you MAKE A POINT, so that we can discuss your SPECIFIC point.  This generalization you keep making is meaningless.

In your opinion. I happen to be of the opinion that consistently applying principles actually matters most of all.

This...




If you can do X, then I can demand that you do X... doesn't mean a goddamn thing.  It's logically correct, yes, but that means nothing.

If the sky is green, then it's not blue.  That's logically correct too, but it's irrelevant in the real world.




As Hawker just explained, the fact that your point is logical within the bounds of your own reasoning doesn't mean that it automatically is THE universal truth and everyone must accept it.

As I said already, in the real world, what is prudent is more important that what is legitimate.  That is where the argument matters, not this captain obvious bullshit.  If you want to argue "minimum wage, taxes, etc." then make threads for each of those subjects, because they deserve their own thread.  Your black/white generalization based on your own reasoning does not magically make you win all arguments on all issues.

Again, someone who disagrees with you will disagree about whether its right to have a minimum wage or low taxes or whatever.  No-one will concede in a debate that your position is legitimate, therefore they have to agree with you.  For example, you can legitimately argue that the minimum wage is a restriction of your freedom to do what you want with your own money on your own property.  Not everyone will agree with you and those who disagree may also have legitimate positions.

Sour grapes.

"I'm right but it was obvious so who cares. "

I do agree that it's obvious, to me at least. However, the fact that I have to keep arguing this point when it comes to minimum wage, taxes, etc, seems to suggest it isn't obvious to everyone. Just get over it and move along if you already knew this.

Yes. It should be legal. Although I believe you should be murdered and the food taken by the starving even if it's illegal. Then he should face the consequences of doing something illegal.

That isn't how the Internet works.  Looking forward to seeing an intelligent post from you with something a little less obvious.

I'm not angry at all. Why do you think that? Just because I insult you after being insulted by you? You seem to have no problem insulting me so why can't I insult you back? That's a rhetorical question by the way. Don't bother answering it because I don't care.

Anyways, I'm glad you agree with me, whether or not you consider it obvious doesn't interest me. You are dismissed now.

You are an angry little fellow aren't you.  If your entire point and the reason you are on about violence, threats, demanding people die, etc is " My point is, if I can legitimately do X then I can legitimately threaten to do X" then I would like to make a few points of my own.

2 + 2 = 4.  Bears do shit in the woods.  The Pope is, in fact, a Catholic. 

If you have any other blindingly obvious truths you want to share with us, please let us know.

I haven't threatened anyone. You're either trolling or you're stupid. For your sake, I hope you're trolling.


I guess you really are stupid. I've said it several times. My point is, if I can legitimately do X then I can legitimately threaten to do X. Do you need it translated into another language? Do you want some pictures to go with it? What will help penetrate that thick skull of yours?

Not attacking you.  Just stay on the same planet as the rest of us.  All this talk about demand, threats, violence and wanting people to die is bizarre.  One day you are all libertarian - next day you are threatening violence against people who break your countries laws. 

Anyway, since you say this is a philosophical discussion, can you give us a clue what philosophical point you wanted to make? 

Legitimate but not decent.  Its like when you see someone drowning; you are under no legal obligation to help but if you can safely rescue the person, its a good thing to do.