100 years ago today

[PLC1]

AHA, the definition of "force", from your post #102:

Force (Physics): A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application.

Which explains how a car accelerates by pushing against the road, or how an airplane does so by the action/reaction formula.

How does that pertain at all to whether an action is a violation of rights? It seems to me that bringing up "force" simply complicates the issue unnecessarily. Should we also bring Boyle's Law into the discussion?

 

[GenSeneca]

but they do make such an event less likely.

I do not see how.

Nothing can keep us perfectly safe, can it?

Yet you insist that we must continue to limit the liberty of all out of fear that a few might abuse thier liberty.

Seriously, would you repeal all of the laws against DUI? What about laws against other actions that put the public at risk? Should it be OK to run red lights, race through neighborhoods, or play chicken?

Such laws are superfluous. Every possible action that a drunk can take to violate your rights is already illegal.

The same is true of the boulders rolling past you at the bottom of the canyon. They might hit you, so the such an eventuality is an appeal to fear and elicit an emotional response. I know they would elicit one from me, were I the one at the bottom of the canyon.

My example was to show that initiating the use of force against another was a violation of that individuals rights. Even if I substitute something non-threatening for the boulder, such as a wiffle ball or a feather pillow, the premise still supports the conclusion.

However, your examples all rely on the worst case scenario, "What if X happens? We should ban Y so that X is less likely to happen." If you make X a non-threatening consequence, the appeal to fear and consequences falls apart. Allow me to demonstrate:

"What if a drunk driver leaves the bar and makes it home safely without violating the rights of anyone? We should ban drunk driving so that such a consequence is less likely to occur."

Without fear, your argument falls apart.

You have to draw the line somewhere. The term DUI has to have a legal definition.

Speeding has a legal definition too, yet when asked about that you said,

Fast enough to be a danger on the highway. It is a judgement call, just like most decisions regarding traffic, and not a hard and fast number.​

Both DUI and speeding have legal definitions yet one is strictly applied using a "hard and fast number" while the other is not... Such contradictions are not the result of using reason and logic to arrive at a conclusion but are inherent to conclusions based on emotion.

Oh, I think the desire to not share the road with drunks and fools is totally rational.

If you consider arriving at an emotional conclusion to be rational, then I must ask for your definition of "rational" as well.

Correct, which is why there are laws against running red lights, speeding, and assorted other imbecilic actions that endanger the public and thus violate our rights.

You are still using the words "endanger" and "violate" as though they are synonyms, even though I have shown that, by definition, they are not. Would you like me to post their definitions once again?

You gave your definition earlier. I'll see if I can find it.

I asked for your definition of force, several times now, will you provide one?

Nope. It only matters whether they are at fault or not. If they are, I'll sue the pants off of them.

Then all other laws are superfluous.

The vehicle code, however, is there to make it less likely that they will slam into my car in the first place.

Then you would have no objection to the state mandating breathalyzers on every motor vehicle, correct? Certainly that would "make it less likely" for a drunk driver to violate the rights others...

AHA, the definition of "force", from your post #102:

Again, I asked for your definition... I already know the definition I use, it's your definition that has yet to be included in the discussion.

Which explains how a car accelerates by pushing against the road, or how an airplane does so by the action/reaction formula.

How does that pertain at all to whether an action is a violation of rights? It seems to me that bringing up "force" simply complicates the issue unnecessarily.

Physical action is required to initiate the use of force against others and initiating the use of force against others is how rights are violated. If you still wish to disagree with these facts, then I will ask once again that you furnish at least one example of how rights can be violated without the use of force.

Should we also bring Boyle's Law into the discussion?

Be my guest.

 

[PLC1]

I do not see how.

I know you don't

My example was to show that initiating the use of force against another was a violation of that individuals rights. Even if I substitute something non-threatening for the boulder, such as a wiffle ball or a feather pillow, the premise still supports the conclusion.

So, If I'm on a cliff above you throwing wiffle balls down at you, then that is a violation of your rights.

If you're racing through my neighborhood after putting down a six pack at the local bar, that isn't a violation of my rights.

Now, I'm starting to understand your position.

 

[GenSeneca]

I know you don't

So, If I'm on a cliff above you throwing wiffle balls down at you, then that is a violation of your rights.

If you're racing through my neighborhood after putting down a six pack at the local bar, that isn't a violation of my rights.

Now, I'm starting to understand your position.

I did not see your definition of "force" in that reply.
I also didn't see an example of how rights can be violated without the use of force.
Nor did I see an explanation for the contradictions evident in the laws you support...

What that post does contain are the same old appeals to ridicule, fear, and consequences that have been present throughout our entire conversation. If it's not too much to ask, I'd really appreciate hearing your definition of "force", an example of how rights can be violated without the use of force, and an explanation regarding your contradictions surrounding speeding and DUI laws. Perhaps then I'll start to understand your position.

 

[PLC1]

I did not see your definition of "force" in that reply.
I also didn't see an example of how rights can be violated without the use of force.
Nor did I see an explanation for the contradictions evident in the laws you support...

What that post does contain are the same old appeals to ridicule, fear, and consequences that have been present throughout our entire conversation. If it's not too much to ask, I'd really appreciate hearing your definition of "force", an example of how rights can be violated without the use of force, and an explanation regarding your contradictions surrounding speeding and DUI laws. Perhaps then I'll start to understand your position.

I agree with your definition of force.

so, neither force nor Boyles Law has anything at all to do with violating rights. Both are laws of physics.

Putting the public in danger is a violation of rights. What constitutes a danger to the public is defined in the law. Practically anything involves some risk, of course. Getting into a car and backing out of the driveway involves some risk. Careening through a neighborhood out of control involves a lot more risk. The law doesn't say I can't back out of my driveway, but it does say that I can't careen through the neighborhood out of control. The laws, passed by our representatives in the state legislature and in Congress, define what is a danger to the public and where the line should be drawn.

If you, or anyone else, feels that the line is improperly drawn, then they can appeal to those same representatives to change the law. It happens all the time.

Force has nothing to do with it one way or another. I'm not sure why that issue even came up.

 

[GenSeneca]

so, neither force nor Boyles Law has anything at all to do with violating rights. Both are laws of physics.

Unless you're claiming the laws of physics do not apply to human action:

Offer an example of a physical action that does not require force.

 

[PLC1]

Unless you're claiming the laws of physics do not apply to human action:

Offer an example of a physical action that does not require force.

Of course, any physical action requires force. So, now the issue is whether or not it takes a physical action to violate someone's rights? It's hard to see how that could happen. All of the examples given thus far involve some sort of physical action.

The inverse is not true, however, that physical action necessarily violates someone's rights. It all depends on what that action is.

 

[GenSeneca]

Of course, any physical action requires force.

That is correct: Physical action requires force => Physical action is required to violate rights => Therefore, force is required to violate rights.

So, now the issue is whether or not it takes a physical action to violate someone's rights?

According to you, force is not necessary to jeopardize/endanger/violate rights:

They don't have to use "force" in order to jeopardize my liberty and yours.​

And...

Recklessly endangering the rest of us is enough to violate our rights. ​

I'm eager to finally hear you offer an example to support those statements.

It's hard to see how that could happen.

Yet you believe it's possible... even if it violates the laws of physics.

All of the examples given thus far involve some sort of physical action.

Which is why none of the examples you've given support your claims.

The inverse is not true, however, that physical action necessarily violates someone's rights. It all depends on what that action is.

Which is why it's necessary to understand the difference between using force against others and using force in general.

 

[PLC1]

That is correct: Physical action requires force => Physical action is required to violate rights => Therefore, force is required to violate rights.


According to you, force is not necessary to jeopardize/endanger/violate rights:

They don't have to use "force" in order to jeopardize my liberty and yours.​

And...

Recklessly endangering the rest of us is enough to violate our rights. ​

I'm eager to finally hear you offer an example to support those statements.

Yet you believe it's possible... even if it violates the laws of physics.


Which is why none of the examples you've given support your claims.


Which is why it's necessary to understand the difference between using force against others and using force in general.

OK, given your definition, you win.

What I meant to say was that you don't have to force someone to do something in order to violate their rights.

But, that's a totally different definition of the word. It isn't even a noun, after all.

It's difficult to see how anything can be accomplished without the use of force, given the meaning we've discussed.

 

[ProudLefty]

That is correct: Physical action requires force => Physical action is required to violate rights => Therefore, force is required to violate rights.

...

Gosh, I have a real problem with the idea that physical action is required to violate rights. I agree that we do not have thought crime in this country, but we do have rights violated without physical action.

• Refusing to let people register to vote is certainly an example of inaction removing rights.
• Refusing to pay taxes is removing rights of the community.
• Refusing to serve when called is removing rights.
• Allowing bad laws to remain on the books (for instance, laws repudiating the rights of gays to marry) is removing rights.
• Not stepping forward to testify when one has witnessed a crime is removing society's right to justice.

Whenever we allow, through our inaction, the rights of others to be trampled, then we are allowing rights to be violated by our very inaction..

Let me be more specific: When a bully is bullying and his/her actions are not restrained then our inaction is enabling the bully's bullying. Yes, the bully is doing actions, but our inaction is letting him repeat that bullying over and over and over.

This may be semantics, but I refuse to condone bad behavior because of my inaction.

 

[GenSeneca]

Gosh, I have a real problem with the idea that physical action is required to violate rights.

Rights can only be violated through force or fraud.

Refusing to let people register to vote is certainly an example of inaction removing rights.
Refusing to pay taxes is removing rights of the community.
Refusing to serve when called is removing rights.
Allowing bad laws to remain on the books (for instance, laws repudiating the rights of gays to marry) is removing rights.
Not stepping forward to testify when one has witnessed a crime is removing society's right to justice.

Remove and violate are not synonyms. If you'd like, I'll post their definitions so you can see the difference for yourself.

Whenever we allow, through our inaction, the rights of others to be trampled, then we are allowing rights to be violated by our very inaction.

Allowing the rights of another to be violated is not the same thing as violating the rights of another.

Yes, the bully is doing actions, but our inaction is letting him repeat that bullying over and over and over.

As you state, it's the bully who is using force, not you, therefore it is the bully who is violating rights, not you.

 

[GenSeneca]

OK, given your definition, you win.

You conceed my points yet your opinion remains unchanged...

What I meant to say was that you don't have to force someone to do something in order to violate their rights.

I agree but you do have to use force against someone to violate their rights.

But, that's a totally different definition of the word. It isn't even a noun, after all.

Force as a Noun:

1. The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power: the force of an explosion.
2.
a. Power made operative against resistance; exertion: use force in driving a nail.
b. The use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain: a confession obtained by force.
3.
a. Intellectual power or vigor, especially as conveyed in writing or speech.
b. Moral strength.
c. A capacity for affecting the mind or behavior; efficacy: the force of logical argumentation.
d. One that possesses such capacity: the forces of evil.
4.
a. A body of persons or other resources organized or available for a certain purpose: a large labor force.
b. A person or group capable of influential action: a retired senator who is still a force in national politics.
5.
a. Military strength.
b. The entire military strength, as of a nation. Often used in the plural.
c. A unit of a nation's military personnel, especially one deployed into combat: Our forces have at last engaged the enemy.
6. Law Legal validity.
7. Physics A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application.
8. Baseball A force play.

Force as a Verb:

1. To compel through pressure or necessity: I forced myself to practice daily. He was forced to take a second job.
2.
a. To gain by the use of force or coercion: force a confession.
b. To move or effect against resistance or inertia: forced my foot into the shoe.
c. To inflict or impose relentlessly: He forced his ideas upon the group.
3.
a. To put undue strain on: She forced her voice despite being hoarse.
b. To increase or accelerate (a pace, for example) to the maximum.
c. To produce with effort and against one's will: force a laugh in spite of pain.
d. To use (language) with obvious lack of ease and naturalness.
4.
a. To move, open, or clear by force: forced our way through the crowd.
b. To break down or open by force: force a lock.
5. To rape.
6. Botany To cause to grow or mature by artificially accelerating normal processes.
7. Baseball
a. To put (a runner) out on a force play.
b. To allow (a run) to be scored by walking a batter when the bases are loaded.
8. Games To cause an opponent to play (a particular card).​

Which of those do you consider most applicable to the violation of rights?

It's difficult to see how anything can be accomplished without the use of force, given the meaning we've discussed.

Not just difficult, impossible... Unless of course we are discussing an example in which the laws of physics do not apply.

 

[PLC1]

Force, as in this definition:

To compel through pressure or necessity: I forced myself to practice daily. He was forced to take a second job.

is not necessary in order to violate someone's rights.

If I'm at the top of the canyon throwing rocks, I didn't force you to be at the bottom of the canyon.

If some damn fool is driving drunk, he didn't force you to be on the road.

If someone decides to set a bonfire next to your house, he didn't force you to build your house there.

Not by the above definition.

But sure, if force means acting on an object, then force is necessary... or is it? Is inaction also a violation of rights, as Proudlefty says it is?

If I, by my inaction, decide not to serve on a jury, am I violating someone's right to trial by jury?

You can make practically any argument by creative definition of terms.

 

[GenSeneca]

You can make practically any argument by creative definition of terms.

Is that what you're trying to do... be creative?

Here are our definitions:

Force (v): To compel through pressure or necessity.​

Force : A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application.​

How are you capable of forcing (v) me without using force ?

Lets look at your example:

If I'm at the top of the canyon throwing rocks, I didn't force you to be at the bottom of the canyon. ​

If you had forced me (verb) to stand at the bottom, that would require using force (noun), thereby violating my rights by the use of force .

Since you did not force me (verb) to stand at the bottom, my rights are only violated when you initiate the use of force (noun) against me, by throwing rocks.

So either option leads to the same conclusion, the use of force (noun) was necessary to violate my rights.

Is inaction also a violation of rights, as Proudlefty says it is?

If you're going to make such a case, then we need to be on the same page concerning the concept of "rights" to avoid confusion. I draw a clear line of distinction between Individual (natural) Rights and statutory legal privileges.

 

[PLC1]

Is that what you're trying to do... be creative?

Here are our definitions:

Force (v): To compel through pressure or necessity.​

Force : A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application.​

How are you capable of forcing (v) me without using force ?

Lets look at your example:

If I'm at the top of the canyon throwing rocks, I didn't force you to be at the bottom of the canyon. ​

If you had forced me (verb) to stand at the bottom, that would require using force (noun), thereby violating my rights by the use of force .

Since you did not force me (verb) to stand at the bottom, my rights are only violated when you initiate the use of force (noun) against me, by throwing rocks.

So either option leads to the same conclusion, the use of force (noun) was necessary to violate my rights.


If you're going to make such a case, then we need to be on the same page concerning the concept of "rights" to avoid confusion. I draw a clear line of distinction between Individual (natural) Rights and statutory legal privileges.

OK, fair enough.

My original premise, before the "force or no force" argument started, was that jeopardizing public safety is a violation of rights.

You seemed to agree that rolling rocks down the canyon, and thus jeopardizing people at the bottom was a violation of the rights of those at the bottom.

I'm not sure whether you agree that driving under the influence, racing on public streets, or setting fires in unsafe locations is a violation of rights or not.

I don't see the difference.

And yes, you have to use force (definition from physics) to do any of the above.

However, you don't have to force (common definition) anyone to be at the bottom of the canyon or on the highway.