100 years ago today

[GenSeneca]

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

Jeopardize: Put (someone or something) into a situation in which there is a danger of loss, harm, or failure.​

You are stating that 'Putting someone else in danger is a violation of rights'.

Violate: to break, infringe, or transgress.​

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.

Your very presence on the top of the canyon puts me in danger,i.e. in jeopardy. Do you consider yourself to have violated my rights simply by being on the top of the cliff?

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.

I'll quote you:

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

Indeed it does depend on what the action is... Whether the guy next to me on the highway is piss drunk or stone sober doesn't matter to me in the slightest, only his actions are of concern. So long as he is not initiating the use of force against me, e.g. drifting into my car with his, he is not violating my rights. And even if he does not use force against me, his very presence, drunk or sober, puts me in jeopardy but his presence alone does not violate my rights.

After all, only 12% of the people who hit me with their car are "drunk", the other 88% are "sober". Citing the smaller % as being a bigger problem strikes me as purely an emotional conclusion.

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.

You may not have to force(v) them to be down there but you will have to use force in order to violate their rights. Without the use of force to create a physical action, you'd just be standing there, violating the rights of no one.

 

[PLC1]

Jeopardize: Put (someone or something) into a situation in which there is a danger of loss, harm, or failure.​

You are stating that 'Putting someone else in danger is a violation of rights'.

Violate: to break, infringe, or transgress.​

Exactly so. Putting someone else in jeopardy is a violation of rights.

Your very presence on the top of the canyon puts me in danger,i.e. in jeopardy. Do you consider yourself to have violated my rights simply by being on the top of the cliff?

So, there is a gray area, no doubt. Me simply being at the top of the cliff involves some risk, regardless of whether I roll boulders or not. I could slip and fall, after all. We all have to accept some risk, as there are no absolute guarantees.

I'll quote you:

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

Indeed it does depend on what the action is... Whether the guy next to me on the highway is piss drunk or stone sober doesn't matter to me in the slightest, only his actions are of concern. So long as he is not initiating the use of force against me, e.g. drifting into my car with his, he is not violating my rights. And even if he does not use force against me, his very presence, drunk or sober, puts me in jeopardy but his presence alone does not violate my rights.

So, your argument is that the guy who is "piss drunk" in the lane next to me is not a risk to me until he does something else, like drifting into my lane? Sorry, but that just isn't so. My rolling rocks down the hill isn't a problem either, until one of them hits you.

After all, only 12% of the people who hit me with their car are "drunk", the other 88% are "sober". Citing the smaller % as being a bigger problem strikes me as purely an emotional conclusion.

OK, so the sober driver can be a risk, too. In fact, every driver poses some risk, just like me being at the top of the canyon, standing there watching the sunset.

If those other drivers start racing, tailgating, cutting in and out of traffic, running stop signs, or whatever, then they've exceeded the level of risk I'm willing to take, and so have violated my rights.

even if they are sober.

You may not have to force(v) them to be down there but you will have to use force in order to violate their rights. Without the use of force to create a physical action, you'd just be standing there, violating the rights of no one.

so, the drunk who is just sitting there, behind the wheel, but parked beside the road and off of the pavement isn't violating anyone's rights.

As in your example. If he is in his own driveway, then he isn't violating anyone's rights either. When he starts weaving down the road, then he is.

Just like when I start rolling those boulders.

 

[GenSeneca]

Exactly so. Putting someone else in jeopardy is a violation of rights.

Either a right has been violated or it has not... Either your arm is broken or it is not. There is no "gray" area for a broken bone, just as there is no "gray" area for the violation of rights.

So, there is a gray area, no doubt.

I've noticed that all your "gray" area exists wherever there are contradictions in your statements.

 

[PLC1]

Either a right has been violated or it has not... Either your arm is broken or it is not. There is no "gray" area for a broken bone, just as there is no "gray" area for the violation of rights.


I've noticed that all your "gray" area exists wherever there are contradictions in your statements.

There is no contradiction in my statements.

Practically anything we do involves some risk to ourselves and others. There are no guarantees.

Some actions involve a lot more risk than others, among them the sorts of behaviors already described.

So, there is a gray area. Where do we draw the line between behaviors that involve undue risk to others, and those that do not?

Unless you're going to change your mind now, and start to maintain that no rights have been violated until the boulder actually hits the person at the bottom of the canyon, or the out of control driver actually causes property damage, death, or injury.

 

[GenSeneca]

There is no contradiction in my statements.

Jeopardize and violate have identical definitions and are synonyms... In what dictionary?

On the one hand, you support the use of government power to punish the actions of an individual who did not violate the rights of others.

On the other hand, you oppose the use of government power to punish the actions of an individual who did not violate the rights of others.

Between those two must be some "gray" area where you rationalize the contradiction.

You believe speeding should be totally subjective and not a hard and fast number but drunk driving should not be subjective at all but rely on a hard and fast number.... And neither law should bother looking at the use of force against others but be based entirely on arbitrary numbers.

Rights can be jeopardized/violated without the use of force... In what universe? One in which the laws of physics do not apply I'm sure.

So, there is a gray area.

You believe that a driver with a BAC of 0.079% is violating the rights of no one, the same driver with a BAC of 0.08% is violating the rights of everyone, where is the "gray" area? How does using arbitrary numbers relate to the use of force against others?

Where do we draw the line between behaviors that involve undue risk to others, and those that do not?

Understanding the use of force, and it's relationship to the violation of rights, makes the line very distinct. You have to use force AGAINST another person to violate the rights of that person. Using force in the same general area as that person is NOT a violation of that person's rights.

Unless you're going to change your mind now, and start to maintain that no rights have been violated until the boulder actually hits the person at the bottom of the canyon, or the out of control driver actually causes property damage, death, or injury.

Rights are violated when you initiate the use of force against another. When you begin to push the boulder, you violate my rights. At what point do you consider my rights to have been violated in the cliff scenario? You never did answer...

 

[PLC1]

Jeopardize and violate have identical definitions and are synonyms... In what dictionary?

On the one hand, you support the use of government power to punish the actions of an individual who did not violate the rights of others.

On the other hand, you oppose the use of government power to punish the actions of an individual who did not violate the rights of others.

Between those two must be some "gray" area where you rationalize the contradiction.

You believe speeding should be totally subjective and not a hard and fast number but drunk driving should not be subjective at all but rely on a hard and fast number.... And neither law should bother looking at the use of force against others but be based entirely on arbitrary numbers.

Rights can be jeopardized/violated without the use of force... In what universe? One in which the laws of physics do not apply I'm sure.

You believe that a driver with a BAC of 0.079% is violating the rights of no one, the same driver with a BAC of 0.08% is violating the rights of everyone, where is the "gray" area? How does using arbitrary numbers relate to the use of force against others?


Understanding the use of force, and it's relationship to the violation of rights, makes the line very distinct. You have to use force AGAINST another person to violate the rights of that person. Using force in the same general area as that person is NOT a violation of that person's rights.


Rights are violated when you initiate the use of force against another. When you begin to push the boulder, you violate my rights. At what point do you consider my rights to have been violated in the cliff scenario? You never did answer...

Now, you're making no sense at all.

When you push the boulder, you've put someone in jeopardy, and therefore violated his/her/their rights.
When you force your automobile to perform unsafe maneuvers, you've put someone in jeopardy, and therefore violated his/her/their rights.

When you set a fire where a fire is unsafe, you've put someone in jeopardy, and therefore violated his/her/their rights.
When you fire a weapon in an unsafe direction, you've engaged in the use of force.

None of the above will necessarily result in injury or death.

All of the above is a violation of rights.

Whether they involve "force" or not is immaterial.

you're the one who wants to split hairs with the definition of "force." I could care less. If you engage in behavior that jeopardizes other people, then you have violated their rights, regardless of whether you use force by whatever definition.

Any behavior involves some risk. The amount of risk is the issue, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. That's why we have laws. You and I may think that the line is drawn in the wrong place, which is why we have representatives who have the power to change those laws.

You may or may not think that driving with a BA level of .08 constitutes an unacceptable risk and is a violation of rights. Maybe you think alcohol is not a factor. Perhaps your position is that it should be higher, or perhaps lower. If you get enough people to agree, then you can get the law changed. Meanwhile an intoxicated driver constitutes a hazard, and therefore a violation of rights, whether he is or isn't using force by one definition or another. The definition of "intoxicated" is the important thing, and it is defined legally.

 

[GenSeneca]

Now, you're making no sense at all.

You're the one claiming that actions do not require force yet you think I'm the one who isn't making sense... You're the one claiming that jeopardize and violate have the same meaning but you think I'm not making sense...

Whether they involve "force" or not is immaterial.

Actually, it's your arbitrary numbers which are immaterial. It's only through physical actions that rights can be violated and having a BAC of X% is NOT a physical action.

Example: There are two drivers on the road, one is legally drunk the other one sober. They both operate their vehicles in exactly the same fashion, obeying all traffic laws etc.

Is it really your opinion that the drunk driver is violating the rights of the sober driver despite the fact that both persons are operating their respective vehicles in exactly the same manner? If so, explain why.

If you engage in behavior that jeopardizes other people, then you have violated their rights, regardless of whether you use force by whatever definition.

Cite an example of "hazardous" behavior that does not involve physical action.

Any behavior involves some risk. The amount of risk is the issue, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

At least you admit that your "line" is entirely arbitrary. My "line" is not. Either someone is using force against another, therefore violating their rights, or they are not. There is no "gray" area regarding the violation of rights or the use of force.

 

[PLC1]

You're the one claiming that actions do not require force yet you think I'm the one who isn't making sense... You're the one claiming that jeopardize and violate have the same meaning but you think I'm not making sense...

I'm the one saying that whether "force" is required or not depends on your definition.

Rolling boulders down the hill requires an action on the part of the person doing the rolling, jeopardizes the people at the bottom, and is therefore a violation of their rights.

Racing cars on the freeway requires an action on the part of the drivers, jeopardizes other drivers, and is therefore a violation of their rights.

Driving under the influence requires an action on the part of the drunk, jeopardizes other drivers, and is therefore a violation of their rights.

And a drunk who is studiously obeying all of the traffic laws is still a hazard, as his reaction time, judgement, and perception has been compromised by the alcohol he has consumed.

It is the same thing. If one is "force", then the other is "force" as well. Whether you want to call it that is immaterial.

 

[GenSeneca]

I'm the one saying that whether "force" is required or not depends on your definition.

You have discarded the most applicable definition of "force", and conflated the definitions of "jeopardize" and "violate" because application of the correct definitions reveals your assertions to be emotional and not rational.

And a drunk who is studiously obeying all of the traffic laws is still a hazard, as his reaction time, judgement, and perception has been compromised by the alcohol he has consumed.

You are not punishing actual actions but merely potential actions. The fact that such actions may or may not occur doesn't seem to concern you in the slightest.

It is the same thing. If one is "force", then the other is "force" as well. Whether you want to call it that is immaterial.

Jeopardize and violate are NOT the same thing. They are distinct words with distinct meanings, words and meanings which you have conflated to be synonomous with each other, even though they are not.

Claiming that force is immaterial to the violation of rights is equally absurd, without force there can be no violation of rights.

 

[PLC1]

You have discarded the most applicable definition of "force", and conflated the definitions of "jeopardize" and "violate" because application of the correct definitions reveals your assertions to be emotional and not rational.


You are not punishing actual actions but merely potential actions. The fact that such actions may or may not occur doesn't seem to concern you in the slightest.


Jeopardize and violate are NOT the same thing. They are distinct words with distinct meanings, words and meanings which you have conflated to be synonomous with each other, even though they are not.

Claiming that force is immaterial to the violation of rights is equally absurd, without force there can be no violation of rights.

So, those boulders that are jeopardizing you at the bottom of the canyon are not violating your rights after all?

 

[GenSeneca]

So, those boulders that are jeopardizing you at the bottom of the canyon are not violating your rights after all?

You claim that jeopardizing the rights of others IS a violation of rights.

You admit that all drivers jeopardize the rights of every other driver by simply being on the road.

Yet... You do not believe that every driver on the road, who is jeopardizing the rights of every other driver, is violating the rights of every other driver.

Perhaps if you took the time to sort out the contradictions in your own conceptualizations, you wouldn't be so confounded by my use of actual definitions and sound logic.

 

[PLC1]

You claim that jeopardizing the rights of others IS a violation of rights.

You admit that all drivers jeopardize the rights of every other driver by simply being on the road.

Yet... You do not believe that every driver on the road, who is jeopardizing the rights of every other driver, is violating the rights of every other driver.

Perhaps if you took the time to sort out the contradictions in your own conceptualizations, you wouldn't be so confounded by my use of actual definitions and sound logic.

So those boulders rolling past you do or do not violate your rights?

I've already explained the rest, ad nausem. There is little point in repeating.

 

[GenSeneca]

So those boulders rolling past you do or do not violate your rights?

I have answered that question several times now, without contradiction I might add, and my answer has never changed.

We both agree that pushing the boulder at me is a violation of my rights but, so far, only I have cited the specific moment when, and precisely how, the violation of rights actually takes place - in any given situation.

I've already explained the rest, ad nausem. There is little point in repeating.

Claiming the existence of a "gray" area (where none exists), ignoring the definitions of words, and claiming to have already explained yourself, are not explanations but evasions.

I found the following contradiction in your position:

You say jeopardizing the rights of others is a violation of rights.
You admit we all jeopardize each other by going about our daily lives.
However, you do not believe everyone who jeopardizes others is violating rights.

Either jeopardizing others is a violation of rights or it is not.

 

[PLC1]

I have answered that question several times now, without contradiction I might add, and my answer has never changed.

We both agree that pushing the boulder at me is a violation of my rights but, so far, only I have cited the specific moment when, and precisely how, the violation of rights actually takes place - in any given situation.


Claiming the existence of a "gray" area (where none exists), ignoring the definitions of words, and claiming to have already explained yourself, are not explanations but evasions.

I found the following contradiction in your position:

You say jeopardizing the rights of others is a violation of rights.
You admit we all jeopardize each other by going about our daily lives.
However, you do not believe everyone who jeopardizes others is violating rights.

Either jeopardizing others is a violation of rights or it is not.

Only in a black and white world, with no shades of gray.

In my world, there are many shades of gray, along with some vibrant colors.

And, in my world, there is nothing that is entirely risk free.

Now, how is it that rolling boulders down the hill is a violation of the rights of those at the bottom of the hill, but racing cars on a public street is not a violation of the rights of people using those streets?

 

[GenSeneca]

Only in a black and white world, with no shades of gray.

Most of us refer to that as reality.

In my world, there are many shades of gray, along with some vibrant colors.

Is the gray area sandwiched between the black and white, or is there no black and white at all, only shades of gray from one end to the other?

And I have to know... Are there absolutes in your rainbow world?

And, in my world, there is nothing that is entirely risk free.

That doesn't explain the contradiction I asked you about.

Now, how is it that rolling boulders down the hill is a violation of the rights of those at the bottom of the hill, but racing cars on a public street is not a violation of the rights of people using those streets?

If I lived in your world, I'd probably just say it's all some big "gray" area that's too muddled and ill-defined to bother explaining and certainly doesn't warrant closer examination...

In the black and white world of reality, the difference is the use of force. Either scenario may, or may not, be a violation of rights, the determining factor is force. If someone initiates the use of force against another, they are violating the rights of the other person. If they are not initiating force against another, then they are not violating anyone's rights.