100 years ago today

[Openmind]

Most of us refer to that as reality.


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?


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


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.

I'm so sorry! It must be so difficult to live your life color blind!
You're missing so much!

 

[GenSeneca]

I'm so sorry! It must be so difficult to live your life color blind!
You're missing so much!

I'm going to politely ask that you address me only with statements that are germane to the topic and stop taking these pot shots at me. Thanks.

 

[PLC1]

Most of us refer to that as reality.

I'm not so sure that "most". There are a few. I refer to it as an overly simplistic view of the world myself.

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?

Oh, there are some.

Like the teen kid who recently stabbed a woman at the car wash, just because he "decided he wanted to kill someone." That is black, evil, an absolute.

Or like the soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his fellows. That is white, an absolutely selfless act.

But, black and white are rare.

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


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 real world, where I live, most things are not absolute, that is true.

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.

So, is rolling boulders down the hill a use of force, but racing cars on the freeway not?

Or are both a violation of rights?

or is neither?

 

[GenSeneca]

I'm not so sure that "most". There are a few. I refer to it as an overly simplistic view of the world myself.

A checkerboard appears gray from a far enough distance, yet we know that a checkerboard is entirely composed of black and white. Seeing the black and white requires examining the subject close enough to find it. So claiming something to be gray, and refusing to look any closer at the subject, is the overly simplistic view.

Oh, there are some.

How do you determine the existence of an absolute?

So, is rolling boulders down the hill a use of force, but racing cars on the freeway not?

Or are both a violation of rights?

or is neither?

Have you learned the difference between using force against others and using force in general? It would appear you have not. I suggest you attempt to understand the distinction rather than continuing to pretend that no such distinction exists.

 

[PLC1]

A checkerboard appears gray from a far enough distance, yet we know that a checkerboard is entirely composed of black and white. Seeing the black and white requires examining the subject close enough to find it. So claiming something to be gray, and refusing to look any closer at the subject, is the overly simplistic view.


How do you determine the existence of an absolute?


Have you learned the difference between using force against others and using force in general? It would appear you have not. I suggest you attempt to understand the distinction rather than continuing to pretend that no such distinction exists.

I have not yet figured out just what you mean by the term "using force", no.

The best I can determine, based on your other posts, is that you are really talking about intent. Since the idiots racing on the highway don't intend to hurt anyone, then it isn't a violation of your rights. You must think that the guy on the canyon rim rolling boulders intends you harm, so that is.

That may be wrong. Your position simply isn't clear at this point.

 

[GenSeneca]

I have not yet figured out just what you mean by the term "using force", no.

The best I can determine, based on your other posts, is that you are really talking about intent. Since the idiots racing on the highway don't intend to hurt anyone, then it isn't a violation of your rights. You must think that the guy on the canyon rim rolling boulders intends you harm, so that is.

That may be wrong. Your position simply isn't clear at this point.

Dr.Who, if you're out there, you often have the ability to understand what I'm saying and "translate" it in terms that are easier for others to understand... So if you could offer any assistance in this instance I would be in your debt.

I'm also curious to know if anyone else finds my position unclear, if they too do not understand the difference between using force in general and using force against others. So if anyone would like to chime in, I would appreciate it.

PLC, you didn't answer my question,

How do you determine the existence of an absolute?

To be or not to be, that really is the question. The definition of the word "be" is, to exist. The word "is" is defined as the 3rd person singular present indicative of be. Therefore, something either is, or it is not. Either it exists, or it does not, there simply is no gray area to the question of existence.

So how does that apply to the use of force? Either force is being used, or it is not. Either that force is being used against you, or it is not. There is no gray area in either conceptualization of the use of force. If you roll a boulder at me, you are using force against me. If I speed past you in my car, I am using force but it is not being used against you.

Intent does not enter into the equation at all.

 

[PLC1]

Dr.Who, if you're out there, you often have the ability to understand what I'm saying and "translate" it in terms that are easier for others to understand... So if you could offer any assistance in this instance I would be in your debt.

I'm also curious to know if anyone else finds my position unclear, if they too do not understand the difference between using force in general and using force against others. So if anyone would like to chime in, I would appreciate it.

PLC, you didn't answer my question,

How do you determine the existence of an absolute?

To be or not to be, that really is the question. The definition of the word "be" is, to exist. The word "is" is defined as the 3rd person singular present indicative of be. Therefore, something either is, or it is not. Either it exists, or it does not, there simply is no gray area to the question of existence.

So how does that apply to the use of force? Either force is being used, or it is not. Either that force is being used against you, or it is not. There is no gray area in either conceptualization of the use of force. If you roll a boulder at me, you are using force against me. If I speed past you in my car, I am using force but it is not being used against you.

Intent does not enter into the equation at all.

So, it doesn't matter what the intent of the boulder roller may be, whether he is trying to hit you, or just likes to see them go bouncing down the hill, and so intent doesn't enter into the equation?

Now, your position is totally unclear.

The idiot racing on the freeway is not targeting anyone. The fool rolling boulders is not targeting anyone. I see no difference at all.

Both have to use "force" in the definition from physics that you just gave. If intent doesn't matter, what does?

As for absolutes, sure, a thing either exists or it does not exist. A tree exists. The tree is a thing of beauty, a useful thing that can be used to make other things, something to preserve, something that poses a danger when it falls, a messy thing that drops leaves and twigs, home for a squirrel that might be entertainment or a pest.

Is the tree itself an absolute, then? Is it good, bad, indifferent?

How can it be indifferent if everything is black and white?

 

[GenSeneca]

If intent doesn't matter, what does?

I swing a baseball bat and hit a baseball.

I swing a baseball bat and hit you in the face.

In both cases, the use of force is being applied, however, in only one case is the use of force being applied against you... Can you tell which one?

 

[PLC1]

I swing a baseball bat and hit a baseball.

I swing a baseball bat and hit you in the face.

In both cases, the use of force is being applied, however, in only one case is the use of force being applied against you... Can you tell which one?

I roll a boulder down a hill, and it splashes in the water.
I roll a boulder down a hill, and it smashes into you.

I race my car down the street, and get it stopped without hitting anything.
I race my car down the street, and broadside yours.

So, is it the outcome that is the determining factor? If so, then I can do anything without violating your rights, just so long as you don't get hurt.

Even roll boulders down the hill, whether or not you're the target.

Just so long as it doesn't hit you.

Is that your point, really?

 

[GenSeneca]

So, is it the outcome that is the determining factor?

I wanted to start with something obvious in hopes you could tell the difference between someone using force and someone using force against you...

I swing a baseball bat at a baseball.

I swing a baseball bat at you.

In both examples I'm using force, however, in only one example I am using force against you, can you tell which is which?

 

[PLC1]

I wanted to start with something obvious in hopes you could tell the difference between someone using force and someone using force against you...

I swing a baseball bat at a baseball.

I swing a baseball bat at you.

In both examples I'm using force, however, in only one example I am using force against you, can you tell which is which?

In your second example, you intend to hit me. In the first, you don't. You could swing at a baseball, miss, and hit me.

But you said that intent was not the determining factor. Now, it appears that you think it is.

 

[GenSeneca]

You could swing at a baseball, miss, and hit me.

If that were the case, would I have used force against you?

 

[PLC1]

If that were the case, would I have used force against you?

By my reckoning, yes, although inadvertently. By yours?????

 

[pocketfullofshells]

If that were the case, would I have used force against you?

based on the fact that it would hurt like hell, and was the direct result of your actions...one would say that yes you used force against him.

one can question if one tried to or not...but force was used..

 

[ProudLefty]

based on the fact that it would hurt like hell, and was the direct result of your actions...one would say that yes you used force against him.

one can question if one tried to or not...but force was used..

The operative phrase, and the reason there are juries, is that yes, force was used, and yes, it hurt like hell, but the force was not used against him. It was used against the ball, and the task failed.

In other words, there is a difference between:

1. swinging at the ball, missing, and hitting a too-close bystander.
2. swinging at the ball, missing, the bat flying out of one's hands and conking granny in the grandstands, and
3. chasing granny down a dark alley and clubbing her with a baseball bat to steal her iPod.

Thats why we have juries.