100 years ago today

[Openmind]

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.

Great point!

 

[GenSeneca]

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

Clearly I would have used force against you. And as I've said all along, using force against others is a violation of rights. So, despite it not being my intention, I would have violated your rights... Thus reaffirming my statement that intent has no bearing on the violation of rights.

 

[GenSeneca]

...the force was not used against him....

That is incorrect. If there were no force used against him, then there would be no injury.

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.

In each of your examples, force is being used against someone and thereby violating that persons rights.

 

[Gipper]

Clearly I would have used force against you. And as I've said all along, using force against others is a violation of rights. So, despite it not being my intention, I would have violated your rights... Thus reaffirming my statement that intent has no bearing on the violation of rights.

This was a excellent exercise Gen. You effectively exposed the fecklessness of Liberalism and I suspect they do not even know it.

Liberalism has produced confused people who love to spout idiotic phrases such as "nothing is absolute" or "oh the nuances" or "many shades of grey" or the really dumb "I see vibrant colors"....when discussing important problems facing the nation. With their line of thinking, there are no solutions to our nation's problems only grey area. This allows a plethora of nonproductive and nonsensical approaches to problems because in their small minds, no solution exists only good intentions exist...and those who know the solution and condemn the failure of good intentions are considered radical or foolish.

The bit about INTENT or INTENTIONS is most enlightening and really gets to the heart of Liberalism. We know liberalism is ALL about GOOD INTENTIONS. Whether the product of these good intentions are effective or not, is completely irrelevant to the Left...since in their minds no solution exists to all these GREY AREAS!!!

What our nation needs is a heavy dose of education into logical thinking. A New Age of Logic. That would completely kill Liberalism once and for ALL!!!

 

[PLC1]

Clearly I would have used force against you. And as I've said all along, using force against others is a violation of rights. So, despite it not being my intention, I would have violated your rights... Thus reaffirming my statement that intent has no bearing on the violation of rights.

So, we agree on that point.

Now, if I'm rolling boulders down the hill, and you're at the bottom, but the boulders go bouncing by and don't hit you, have I or have I not violated your rights?

 

[GenSeneca]

So, we agree on that point.

Yes, but I'm quite positive we still agree for different reasons.

Now, if I'm rolling boulders down the hill, and you're at the bottom, but the boulders go bouncing by and don't hit you, have I or have I not violated your rights?

You have asked this question, and I have answered it, several times now... do you expect my answer to change? My answer remains the same. I think what's needed is to alter the conditions of the example to better highlight where it is that we disagree:

I'm at the bottom of the cliff, you're at the top. You begin pushing the boulder on a path that is parallel to my own.

I think we could both agree that you are using force to move the boulder, we can both agree that your actions are jeopardizing my rights, however, only you believe that your actions are in violation of my rights. Unless, and/or until, that force is used against me, I do not consider you to be violating my rights.

 

[PLC1]

Yes, but I'm quite positive we still agree for different reasons.



You have asked this question, and I have answered it, several times now... do you expect my answer to change? My answer remains the same. I think what's needed is to alter the conditions of the example to better highlight where it is that we disagree:

I'm at the bottom of the cliff, you're at the top. You begin pushing the boulder on a path that is parallel to my own.

I think we could both agree that you are using force to move the boulder, we can both agree that your actions are jeopardizing my rights, however, only you believe that your actions are in violation of my rights. Unless, and/or until, that force is used against me, I do not consider you to be violating my rights.

Aha! So, that's the small, inconsequential, semantic difference: jeopardizing rights vs. violating rights.

If I'm racing cars on the same street where you're waking your dog, then I'm jeopardizing your rights. If I actually run over you and/or your dog, then I've violated your rights. If I'm rolling boulders down the hill, and you're at the bottom, then I've jeopardized your rights. When one of my boulders takes you down the hill with it, then I've violated them.

So, there really is no difference between rolling boulders or driving recklessly, at all, is there?

Do I finally have your position figured out, or not?

And, should the cops arrest someone for jeopardizing our rights, or wait until the rights are actually violated?

 

[GenSeneca]

Aha! So, that's the small, inconsequential, semantic difference: jeopardizing rights vs. violating rights.

You still believe it's my position that physical damage would have to occur before I considered a violation of rights to have taken place but, as I've said repeatedly, that is not my position.

Using force against others is a violation of rights, whether or not the use of that force results in physical damage is beside the point, and intent is equally irrelevant.

The problem is that we are both looking at totally different parameters when determining the violation of rights. I'm looking at reality, that is to say, I'm looking at what IS happening, or what HAS happened, taking only that which exists into account. Hence my view that it's all black and white.

You discard reality in order to embrace speculation about the future, you focus on what MIGHT happen and completely ignore what IS happening and what HAS happened.

The past exists. The present exists. The future does not exist.
The past is therefore black and white. The present is therefore black and white. The future is therefore a big "gray" area. This so called "gray" area only exists where there is a lack of facts regarding the topic. If you find "gray" area in the past or present, you do not have enough facts. Since we cannot predict with 100% certainty what will happen in the future, thanks to all the things which MIGHT happen, the future is a "gray" area.

You place most, if not all, of the emphasis of your decision on that which does not exist, that which MIGHT happen - to the exclusion of that which IS happening. What IS happening exists, what MIGHT happen does not. What HAS happened exists, what MIGHT HAVE happened does not. That which exists is reality, that which does not exist is inapplicable to the topic.

In determining whether or not a right has been violated, your view is based entirely on a reality which does not exist, so it's all a big "gray" area to you. In contrast, I look only at reality, that which exists, placing all the emphasis on what IS happening, or what HAS happened, using only the pertinent facts of the case in order to determine the violation of rights.

Going back to the boulder example, or any example you may wish to offer, there is only one fact which bears consideration in determining whether or not a violation of rights is taking place: Is force being used against another person? Either it is, or it is not. Yes or No, Black or White, since we are making the determination based on this fact, based on reality, based on that which exists, there is no "gray" area.

 

[PLC1]

You still believe it's my position that physical damage would have to occur before I considered a violation of rights to have taken place but, as I've said repeatedly, that is not my position.

Using force against others is a violation of rights, whether or not the use of that force results in physical damage is beside the point, and intent is equally irrelevant.

The problem is that we are both looking at totally different parameters when determining the violation of rights. I'm looking at reality, that is to say, I'm looking at what IS happening, or what HAS happened, taking only that which exists into account. Hence my view that it's all black and white.

You discard reality in order to embrace speculation about the future, you focus on what MIGHT happen and completely ignore what IS happening and what HAS happened.

The past exists. The present exists. The future does not exist.
The past is therefore black and white. The present is therefore black and white. The future is therefore a big "gray" area. This so called "gray" area only exists where there is a lack of facts regarding the topic. If you find "gray" area in the past or present, you do not have enough facts. Since we cannot predict with 100% certainty what will happen in the future, thanks to all the things which MIGHT happen, the future is a "gray" area.

You place most, if not all, of the emphasis of your decision on that which does not exist, that which MIGHT happen - to the exclusion of that which IS happening. What IS happening exists, what MIGHT happen does not. What HAS happened exists, what MIGHT HAVE happened does not. That which exists is reality, that which does not exist is inapplicable to the topic.

In determining whether or not a right has been violated, your view is based entirely on a reality which does not exist, so it's all a big "gray" area to you. In contrast, I look only at reality, that which exists, placing all the emphasis on what IS happening, or what HAS happened, using only the pertinent facts of the case in order to determine the violation of rights.

Going back to the boulder example, or any example you may wish to offer, there is only one fact which bears consideration in determining whether or not a violation of rights is taking place: Is force being used against another person? Either it is, or it is not. Yes or No, Black or White, since we are making the determination based on this fact, based on reality, based on that which exists, there is no "gray" area.

So, how do you use force against another person without intending to use force against another person? If it doesn't matter whether the boulder hits you, doesn't matter whether or not I intended to hit you, what does matter?

I can't roll boulders without using force. I can't fire a gun without using force. I can't drive a vehicle without using force. Force, as you have defined it, is necessary to do virtually anything.

If I'm racing cars through your neighborhood, if it doesn't matter whether or not I intend to hit you, then what does matter?

Your position is making less and less sense to me.

 

[GenSeneca]

So... what does matter?

The use of force against others is still all that matters. However, you still fail to comprehend the difference between using force and using force against others.

Using force against others: Lets say we're both driving on the highway at the same speed, you're in the middle lane and I'm in the left lane. You're cruising in my blind spot near my rear quarter panel, so I don't know you're there. Without checking my blind spot, I begin to merge from my lane to yours. To avoid an inevitable collision, you tap your brakes so that our cars do not collide. We are both now traveling in the same lane.

In that example, we are both using force. Despite the fact that physical damage was avoided, I did use force against you. Although it was not my intent to use force against you, I did. Nevertheless, in using force against you I violated your rights, and that is all that matters.

 

[PLC1]

The use of force against others is still all that matters. However, you still fail to comprehend the difference between using force and using force against others.

Using force against others: Lets say we're both driving on the highway at the same speed, you're in the middle lane and I'm in the left lane. You're cruising in my blind spot near my rear quarter panel, so I don't know you're there. Without checking my blind spot, I begin to merge from my lane to yours. To avoid an inevitable collision, you tap your brakes so that our cars do not collide. We are both now traveling in the same lane.

In that example, we are both using force. Despite the fact that physical damage was avoided, I did use force against you. Although it was not my intent to use force against you, I did. Nevertheless, in using force against you I violated your rights, and that is all that matters.

What is confusing is your definition of the term "force".

Now, the above is clear. Let's see.. the guy racing on a public highway isn't "using force" against me unless I happen to be on the road at the same time, and have to take evasive action as a result, and/or suffer injury or property damage.

So, is it coming clear now?

And, if the idiot racing down a residential street isn't forcing anyone to take evasive action, then he (it usually is a male doing such) isn't using force against anyone.

Now, does that mean that the cops should just stand back and wait until someone actually has to dodge him?

 

[GenSeneca]

Now, does that mean that the cops should just stand back and wait until someone actually has to dodge him?

Essentially, yes... you have to wait for him to actually use force against you before you can use force against him. That is how the individual right of self defense works.

 

[PLC1]

Essentially, yes... you have to wait for him to actually use force against you before you can use force against him. That is how the individual right of self defense works.

And now we've boiled all the verbiage down to the real disagreement that we have.

The police, acting on laws passed by the representatives of we, the people, should take action to prevent death and injury by reckless individuals doing foolish things.

The police should not wait until a pedestrian actually has to jump back out of the way of some idiot racing his car on a public street, nor use "force" by any definition to prevent me from rolling boulders down the hill when someone is at the bottom, or stop someone from conducting target practice across a busy highway, or any of the other dumb things that people sometimes do.

 

[GenSeneca]

And now we've boiled all the verbiage down to the real disagreement that we have.

Yes, individual rights. You are asserting that some individuals should have rights that other individuals do not while I believe that all individuals should have equal rights. That is the fundamental disagreement.

 

[PLC1]

Yes, individual rights. You are asserting that some individuals should have rights that other individuals do not while I believe that all individuals should have equal rights. That is the fundamental disagreement.

It's quite interesting that someone who keeps redefining terms until all meaning is lost would come up with a total misinterpretation of what I've posted.

All individuals have the same rights.
You don't have the right to put me in jeopardy by foolish or reckless actions.

I don't have the right to put you in jeopardy by foolish or reckless actions.

It works both ways.