Let us say that you have more food than you can eat, and your surplus food will rot if it is not given away. Is it legitimate for you to deny the starving man food in that situation?
I'm still curious about this.
Topic: Legitimate Threats, Legitimate Demands - page 5. (Read 5475 times)
I'm still curious about this.
Its obvious you have something troubling you and I wonder if you considered turning the computer off for a bit and finding someone who you can talk to and get things in perspective.
You're either trolling or you take posts made on a discussion forum way too seriously. Either way, stop.
So your OP was not serious?
Honestly, I'm not trolling. Your OP is very odd. Whatever vision you want to promote, talk about demanding people kill themselves and insisting its your right and talk of threats only makes you look strange and undermines your argument.
/peace out
Well then you really don't understand how philosophers work. We...
Quote from: bitcoin2cash
Quote from: sje397
How do you define 'legitimate'? How do you define 'demand'?
I would assume like most other people. Are you unfamiliar with those words?Quote from: bitcoin2cash
Everyone else seems to understand me. I'll do that when a non-troll makes the same request.
The digression into "how Philosophers work" is puerile enough but considering that philosophers tend to make a point of defining terms, often exceptionally precise ones. There is some pretty significant irony here.
Quote from: bitcoin2cash
* If I have the right to do X then it is legitimate for me to threaten to do X.
Is this whole statement an assertion or are you claiming that "legitimate to threaten" follows from "right to do"?If the later then it's may not be true but it will depend exactly what "legitimate", "right" and "threaten" means. For example you might have the right to believe that some race should be destroyed but, at least where I live you can not legally verbalize it. So it's at least conceivable that to threatening to become this kind of person is, at least on paper illegal.
If the former then I feel like I've walked in on a circle-jerk.
When do you tell us wtf your point is?
How does this ridiculous and irrelevant demand that people kill themselves relate to real-world issues?
How does this ridiculous and irrelevant demand that people kill themselves relate to real-world issues?
What's this weird obsession with threats and violence?
Cut the bullshit. This is the politics and society section. One of the things we talk about is laws i.e. what should be legal. If something is illegal then you will be stopped, with violence if necessary. I'm sorry if you don't understand that but quit trying to attack me personally and stick to the arguments.
In this country, blackmail is legitimate if the subject matter is true.
You might want to read 18 U.S.C. § 873.
Legitimate doesn't mean its OK.
Legitimate means I can't use violence to stop you. It's legitimate to call your grandmother a cunt but it's definitely not something you should do.
Now you are drifting back into crazy talk. What's this weird obsession with threats and violence? The is a website - consider going to a bar and jumping the line at a pool table if you want violence. While posting here, consider making a logical point.
What's legitimate or not doesn't matter in the real world.
You're an idiot. Please stop talking to me.
Typical.
Once again you miss the irony you bring on yourself. How can you call yourself a philosopher, but be afraid of getting into depth and gray areas of any issue.
What's legitimate or not doesn't matter in the real world.
You're an idiot. Please stop talking to me.
After all, no-one will disagree with your logic...
Cool, then you recognize the legitimacy of blackmail? I can legitimately tell people your dirty little secret. That's free speech. So then I can legitimately threaten to tell people your dirty little secret unless you pay me $1,000 every month. Right?
Right, at least under your moronic logic. The real world is less black/white.
Oh, so you disagree with my logic? Alright well I guess Hawker was wrong then. Someone will disagree with my logic.
As previously stated, your logic by itself is pointless unless you make some kind of point with it. What's legitimate or not doesn't matter in the real world. What matters in the real world is what's prudent.
In this country, blackmail is legitimate if the subject matter is true.
You might want to read 18 U.S.C. § 873.
Legitimate doesn't mean its OK.
Legitimate means I can't use violence to stop you. It's legitimate to call your grandmother a cunt but it's definitely not something you should do.
After all, no-one will disagree with your logic...
Cool, then you recognize the legitimacy of blackmail? I can legitimately tell people your dirty little secret. That's free speech. So then I can legitimately threaten to tell people your dirty little secret unless you pay me $1,000 every month. Right?
In this country, blackmail is legitimate if the subject matter is true. There are press agents like Max Clifford who make a very good living getting "kiss'n'tell" stories, approaching the rich individual involved and for a handsome fee selling them the exclusive right to the story.
Legitimate doesn't mean its OK. Most people are torn between a prurient desire to know celebrity gossip and a moral repulsion at the way the stories are sourced.
If the story is false, that's another matter but I doubt you are claiming its legitimate to lie about people for profit.
Out of curiosity, why do you care? Has someone tried to stop you talking about some "dirty little secret?" Do tell...
After all, no-one will disagree with your logic...
Cool, then you recognize the legitimacy of blackmail? I can legitimately tell people your dirty little secret. That's free speech. So then I can legitimately threaten to tell people your dirty little secret unless you pay me $1,000 every month. Right?
Right, at least under your moronic logic. The real world is less black/white.
Oh, so you disagree with my logic? Alright well I guess Hawker was wrong then. Someone will disagree with my logic.
After all, no-one will disagree with your logic...
Cool, then you recognize the legitimacy of blackmail? I can legitimately tell people your dirty little secret. That's free speech. So then I can legitimately threaten to tell people your dirty little secret unless you pay me $1,000 every month. Right?
Right, at least under your moronic logic. The real world is less black/white.
After all, no-one will disagree with your logic...
Cool, then you recognize the legitimacy of blackmail? I can legitimately tell people your dirty little secret. That's free speech. So then I can legitimately threaten to tell people your dirty little secret unless you pay me $1,000 every month. Right?
For the sake of discussion, I agree that your conclusions follow from your premises. However, how do you determine what are really your rights and mine?
That's far beyond the scope of this discussion. Let's keep this focused on arguing about whether or not I can threaten to do what I have the right to do, or demand you to do what you have the right to do.
Yes you can threaten as much as you want. but you can't demand me to do what i have the right/need/want/like to do.
I actually don't give a fuck about threat , threatening is just words and doesn't damage. If someone threatens to Kill you , doesn't mean he will actually do it. To be accused of attempt of murder you actually have to take action to fulfill the murder. So in my view is OK even to threaten.
I have the right to live but you can't demand me to live.
I have the right to work but you can't demand me to work.
I have the right to vote but you can't demand me to vote.
You don't have the right to kill me , but you can threaten me as much as you want , you should be watched but not penalized for threatening.
A country becomes nuclear , it can threaten to use the Nukes , but there shouldn't be a action against that country only if it uses it's Nukes. NO PREEMPTIVE STRIKES.
I agree that this all follows logically from your premises with the understanding that "demand" does not mean the individual has to comply.
I never understood "demand" to mean that, such as when workers go on strike because they demand better wages or working conditions.
Thoughts?
I'm not concerned from where a right to do X is derived. My only point is, if I have can legitimately do X then I can legitimately threaten to do X. If anyone disagrees with that, let me know. Everything else is off-topic.
So you made a thread about threats and demands to illustrate your grasp of logic? Your logic is correct. Congratulations. Beyond being logically correct, is there a point? After all, no-one will disagree with your logic but many will disagree with your definition of "legitimate."
Exactly this.
I understand. It's a bit like the Colosseum scene in Life Of Brian:
Sometimes I think this place is so much like the Peoples Font of Judea.
Solidarity brothers... er... and sisters.
Quote
JUDITH: I do feel, Reg, that any Anti-Imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power-base.
REG: Agreed. Francis?
FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man--
STAN: Or woman.
FRANCIS: Or woman... to rid himself--
STAN: Or herself.
FRANCIS: Or herself.
REG: Agreed.
FRANCIS: Thank you, brother.
STAN: Or sister.
FRANCIS: Or sister. Where was I?
REG: I think you'd finished.
FRANCIS: Oh. Right.
REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--
STAN: Or woman.
REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.
STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN: I want to be one.
REG: What?
STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG: What?!
LORETTA: It's my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! -- Where's the fetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA: [crying]
JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
REG: Agreed. Francis?
FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man--
STAN: Or woman.
FRANCIS: Or woman... to rid himself--
STAN: Or herself.
FRANCIS: Or herself.
REG: Agreed.
FRANCIS: Thank you, brother.
STAN: Or sister.
FRANCIS: Or sister. Where was I?
REG: I think you'd finished.
FRANCIS: Oh. Right.
REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--
STAN: Or woman.
REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.
STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN: I want to be one.
REG: What?
STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG: What?!
LORETTA: It's my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! -- Where's the fetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA: [crying]
JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
Sometimes I think this place is so much like the Peoples Font of Judea.
Solidarity brothers... er... and sisters.
I agree that this all follows logically from your premises with the understanding that "demand" does not mean the individual has to comply.
I never understood "demand" to mean that, such as when workers go on strike because they demand better wages or working conditions.
Thoughts?
I'm not concerned from where a right to do X is derived. My only point is, if I have can legitimately do X then I can legitimately threaten to do X. If anyone disagrees with that, let me know. Everything else is off-topic.
So you made a thread about threats and demands to illustrate your grasp of logic? Your logic is correct. Congratulations. Beyond being logically correct, is there a point? After all, no-one will disagree with your logic but many will disagree with your definition of "legitimate."
Your original post still makes absolutely no sense. You need to articulate your point better, because extreme examples are useless if no one understands wtf point you're even trying to make.
Everyone else seems to understand me. I'll do that when a non-troll makes the same request.
Your original post still makes absolutely no sense. You need to articulate your point better, because extreme examples are useless if no one understands wtf point you're even trying to make.
Its obvious you have something troubling you and I wonder if you considered turning the computer off for a bit and finding someone who you can talk to and get things in perspective.
You're either trolling or you take posts made on a discussion forum way too seriously. Either way, stop.
So your OP was not serious?
Honestly, I'm not trolling. Your OP is very odd. Whatever vision you want to promote, talk about demanding people kill themselves and insisting its your right and talk of threats only makes you look strange and undermines your argument.
/peace out
Well then you really don't understand how philosophers work. We like to talk about edge and extreme cases because they inform us about the general and middle cases.
And how does this inform you about "general" and "middle" cases?
What's true for the controversial cases is true for the uncontroversial cases. If I can convince you that I should have a mile, I can easily convince you that I should have an inch.
Jump to: