|
Title: The Myth of Compromise Post by: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 07:18:15 PM "There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .
When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil." - Ayn Rand Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: cbeast on November 09, 2011, 07:41:26 PM Written like a true sociopath.
Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: ribuck on November 09, 2011, 08:26:07 PM Written like a true sociopath. So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison?Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 08:43:38 PM Written like a true sociopath. So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison?Its a false choice. Rynd argues that since compromise between food and poison results in death, all other compromises are equally disastrous. Of course that is not true. I can agree to meet someone at 2.30 instead of 3 as a compromise and be none the worse off. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 08:46:29 PM Written like a true sociopath. So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison?Its a false choice. Rynd argues that since compromise between food and poison results in death, all other compromises are equally disastrous. Of course that is not true. I can agree to meet someone at 2.30 instead of 3 as a compromise and be none the worse off. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 08:50:24 PM Written like a true sociopath. So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison?Its a false choice. Rynd argues that since compromise between food and poison results in death, all other compromises are equally disastrous. Of course that is not true. I can agree to meet someone at 2.30 instead of 3 as a compromise and be none the worse off. Whereas refusing to compromise leads to violence and disaster. Cheerful soul wasn't she. It must have been the years of living off Social Security that made her bitter. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: cbeast on November 09, 2011, 08:52:19 PM Written like a true sociopath. So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison?That's a sophomoric fallacy. From Wikipedia "A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes)." Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 08:53:38 PM Written like a true sociopath. So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison?That's a sophomoric fallacy. From Wikipedia "A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes)." Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 08:55:11 PM Written like a true sociopath. So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison?Its a false choice. Rynd argues that since compromise between food and poison results in death, all other compromises are equally disastrous. Of course that is not true. I can agree to meet someone at 2.30 instead of 3 as a compromise and be none the worse off. Whereas refusing to compromise leads to violence and disaster. How so? Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: cbeast on November 09, 2011, 08:57:10 PM Written like a true sociopath. So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison?That's a sophomoric fallacy. From Wikipedia "A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes)." Don't tell that to insurance companies. Auto theft insurance will disappear. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: RodeoX on November 09, 2011, 08:59:52 PM Written like a true sociopath. Hahaha That made me laugh. cbeast, you may be my favorite bit-comic. :D Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 09:00:15 PM Written like a true sociopath. So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison?Its a false choice. Rynd argues that since compromise between food and poison results in death, all other compromises are equally disastrous. Of course that is not true. I can agree to meet someone at 2.30 instead of 3 as a compromise and be none the worse off. Whereas refusing to compromise leads to violence and disaster. How so? If you are on land that you believe you own and someone else believes is rightfully theirs, the choices are compromise (go to court) or violence (get a gun). Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 09:02:00 PM Written like a true sociopath. So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison?Its a false choice. Rynd argues that since compromise between food and poison results in death, all other compromises are equally disastrous. Of course that is not true. I can agree to meet someone at 2.30 instead of 3 as a compromise and be none the worse off. Whereas refusing to compromise leads to violence and disaster. How so? If you are on land that you believe you own and someone else believes is rightfully theirs, the choices are compromise (go to court) or violence (get a gun). What will the court do? Split the land in half? The rightful land owner will only lose in that case. He will lose the right to land that was rightfully his. Evil will triumph and the fraudster will be able to steal land. If the rightful owner or other property enforcer shoots the fraudster, only good wins. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: cbeast on November 09, 2011, 09:10:50 PM from http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm (http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm) Quote In December of 1927, Hickman, nineteen years old, showed up at a Los Angeles public school and managed to get custody of a twelve-year-old girl, Marian (sometimes Marion) Parker. He was able to convince Marian's teacher that the girl's father, a well-known banker, had been seriously injured in a car accident and that the girl had to go to the hospital immediately. The story was a lie. Hickman disappeared with Marian, and over the next few days Mr. and Mrs. Parker received a series of ransom notes. The notes were cruel and taunting and were sometimes signed "Death" or "Fate." The sum of $1,500 was demanded for the child's safe release. (Hickman needed this sum, he later claimed, because he wanted to go to Bible college!) The father raised the payment in gold certificates and delivered it to Hickman. As told by the article "Fate, Death and the Fox" in crimelibrary.com, "At the rendezvous, Mr. Parker handed over the money to a young man who was waiting for him in a parked car. When Mr. Parker paid the ransom, he could see his daughter, Marion, sitting in the passenger seat next to the suspect. As soon as the money was exchanged, the suspect drove off with the victim still in the car. At the end of the street, Marion's corpse was dumped onto the pavement. She was dead. Her legs had been chopped off and her eyes had been wired open to appear as if she was still alive. Her internal organs had been cut out and pieces of her body were later found strewn all over the Los Angeles area." This was Ayn Rand's hero and model "Superman." He was dragged whimpering and whining to his execution much like Ayn Rand herself taking Social Security and Medicare as she faced her death. Cowards all. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 09:13:00 PM from http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm (http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm) Quote In December of 1927, Hickman, nineteen years old, showed up at a Los Angeles public school and managed to get custody of a twelve-year-old girl, Marian (sometimes Marion) Parker. He was able to convince Marian's teacher that the girl's father, a well-known banker, had been seriously injured in a car accident and that the girl had to go to the hospital immediately. The story was a lie. Hickman disappeared with Marian, and over the next few days Mr. and Mrs. Parker received a series of ransom notes. The notes were cruel and taunting and were sometimes signed "Death" or "Fate." The sum of $1,500 was demanded for the child's safe release. (Hickman needed this sum, he later claimed, because he wanted to go to Bible college!) The father raised the payment in gold certificates and delivered it to Hickman. As told by the article "Fate, Death and the Fox" in crimelibrary.com, "At the rendezvous, Mr. Parker handed over the money to a young man who was waiting for him in a parked car. When Mr. Parker paid the ransom, he could see his daughter, Marion, sitting in the passenger seat next to the suspect. As soon as the money was exchanged, the suspect drove off with the victim still in the car. At the end of the street, Marion's corpse was dumped onto the pavement. She was dead. Her legs had been chopped off and her eyes had been wired open to appear as if she was still alive. Her internal organs had been cut out and pieces of her body were later found strewn all over the Los Angeles area." This was Ayn Rand's hero and model "Superman." He was dragged whimpering and whining to his execution much like Ayn Rand herself taking Social Security and Medicare as she faced her death. Cowards all. Also, Rand paid into Social Security all her life. She was only taking back value she had already earned, that would of been better spent in a savings account. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 09:16:18 PM ...snip... What will the court do? Split the land in half? The rightful land owner will only lose in that case. He will lose the right to land that was rightfully his. Evil will triumph and the fraudster will be able to steal land. If the rightful owner or other property enforcer shoots the fraudster, only good wins. Of course in your dream world, the guy who gets killed is the "bad" guy. How immature are you? Go to a court and you will see honest people with disagreements about who really owns a property or a shareholding all day long. The very reason courts exist is that 2 honest men can both have a legitimate claim to the same property and impartial judgement is preferable to violence. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: cbeast on November 09, 2011, 09:19:28 PM from http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm (http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm) Quote In December of 1927, Hickman, nineteen years old, showed up at a Los Angeles public school and managed to get custody of a twelve-year-old girl, Marian (sometimes Marion) Parker. He was able to convince Marian's teacher that the girl's father, a well-known banker, had been seriously injured in a car accident and that the girl had to go to the hospital immediately. The story was a lie. Hickman disappeared with Marian, and over the next few days Mr. and Mrs. Parker received a series of ransom notes. The notes were cruel and taunting and were sometimes signed "Death" or "Fate." The sum of $1,500 was demanded for the child's safe release. (Hickman needed this sum, he later claimed, because he wanted to go to Bible college!) The father raised the payment in gold certificates and delivered it to Hickman. As told by the article "Fate, Death and the Fox" in crimelibrary.com, "At the rendezvous, Mr. Parker handed over the money to a young man who was waiting for him in a parked car. When Mr. Parker paid the ransom, he could see his daughter, Marion, sitting in the passenger seat next to the suspect. As soon as the money was exchanged, the suspect drove off with the victim still in the car. At the end of the street, Marion's corpse was dumped onto the pavement. She was dead. Her legs had been chopped off and her eyes had been wired open to appear as if she was still alive. Her internal organs had been cut out and pieces of her body were later found strewn all over the Los Angeles area." This was Ayn Rand's hero and model "Superman." He was dragged whimpering and whining to his execution much like Ayn Rand herself taking Social Security and Medicare as she faced her death. Cowards all. Also, Rand paid into Social Security all her life. She was only taking back value she had already earned that would of been better spent in a savings account. Calling a psychopathic killer a "Superman" is sociopathic. I don't see how that can be construed as ad hominem. Ayn Rand accepting public assistance because "she paid into it" makes her a hypocrite for saying things like "America's abundance was not created by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes." Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 09:19:43 PM ...snip... What will the court do? Split the land in half? The rightful land owner will only lose in that case. He will lose the right to land that was rightfully his. Evil will triumph and the fraudster will be able to steal land. If the rightful owner or other property enforcer shoots the fraudster, only good wins. Of course in your dream world, the guy who gets killed is the "bad" guy. How immature are you? Go to a court and you will see honest people with disagreements about who really owns a property or a shareholding all day long. The very reason courts exist is that 2 honest men can both have a legitimate claim to the same property and impartial judgement is preferable to violence. All I am saying is that if the court splits the land in half and steals from a person who by principle believes he has a rightful claim to all of the land, there was no compromise. The landowner lost. The thief won. If by some chance they are both entitled to portions of the land, then there is no compromise either. The rightful landowners will have control of their land. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 09:20:43 PM from http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm (http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm) Quote In December of 1927, Hickman, nineteen years old, showed up at a Los Angeles public school and managed to get custody of a twelve-year-old girl, Marian (sometimes Marion) Parker. He was able to convince Marian's teacher that the girl's father, a well-known banker, had been seriously injured in a car accident and that the girl had to go to the hospital immediately. The story was a lie. Hickman disappeared with Marian, and over the next few days Mr. and Mrs. Parker received a series of ransom notes. The notes were cruel and taunting and were sometimes signed "Death" or "Fate." The sum of $1,500 was demanded for the child's safe release. (Hickman needed this sum, he later claimed, because he wanted to go to Bible college!) The father raised the payment in gold certificates and delivered it to Hickman. As told by the article "Fate, Death and the Fox" in crimelibrary.com, "At the rendezvous, Mr. Parker handed over the money to a young man who was waiting for him in a parked car. When Mr. Parker paid the ransom, he could see his daughter, Marion, sitting in the passenger seat next to the suspect. As soon as the money was exchanged, the suspect drove off with the victim still in the car. At the end of the street, Marion's corpse was dumped onto the pavement. She was dead. Her legs had been chopped off and her eyes had been wired open to appear as if she was still alive. Her internal organs had been cut out and pieces of her body were later found strewn all over the Los Angeles area." This was Ayn Rand's hero and model "Superman." He was dragged whimpering and whining to his execution much like Ayn Rand herself taking Social Security and Medicare as she faced her death. Cowards all. Also, Rand paid into Social Security all her life. She was only taking back value she had already earned that would of been better spent in a savings account. Calling a psychopathic killer a "Superman" is sociopathic. I don't see how that can be construed as ad hominem. Ayn Rand accepting public assistance because "she paid into it" makes her a hypocrite for saying things like "America's abundance was not created by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes." No, this scenario is an ad hominem to the main argument at hand. She was forced to pay into it. Any reasonable person would take back what was stolen from them. Also: https://i.imgur.com/woUgZ.jpg Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: cbeast on November 09, 2011, 09:25:30 PM No, this scenario is an ad hominem to the main argument at hand. She was forced to pay into it. Any reasonable person would take back what was stolen from them. Nobody forced her to leave Russia and move to socialist America. lol Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 09:26:14 PM ...snip... What will the court do? Split the land in half? The rightful land owner will only lose in that case. He will lose the right to land that was rightfully his. Evil will triumph and the fraudster will be able to steal land. If the rightful owner or other property enforcer shoots the fraudster, only good wins. Of course in your dream world, the guy who gets killed is the "bad" guy. How immature are you? Go to a court and you will see honest people with disagreements about who really owns a property or a shareholding all day long. The very reason courts exist is that 2 honest men can both have a legitimate claim to the same property and impartial judgement is preferable to violence. All I am saying is that if the court splits the land in half and steals from a person who by principle believes he has a rightful claim to all of the land, there was no compromise. The landowner lost. The thief one. If by some chance they are both entitled to portions of the land, then there is no compromise either. The rightful landowners will have control of their land. All I am saying is that you need to grow up. The court may award the entire plot to one of the claimants and the other will have to pay legal costs for both sides. Just because the court does that does not mean the loser was wrong to bring the case. Its perfectly normal for honest people to have honest disagreements and to use courts to settle them. What's sickening is your idea that one of these honest people should kill the other. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 09:26:48 PM No, this scenario is an ad hominem to the main argument at hand. She was forced to pay into it. Any reasonable person would take back what was stolen from them. Nobody forced her to leave Russia and move to socialist America. lol Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 09:28:17 PM ...snip... What will the court do? Split the land in half? The rightful land owner will only lose in that case. He will lose the right to land that was rightfully his. Evil will triumph and the fraudster will be able to steal land. If the rightful owner or other property enforcer shoots the fraudster, only good wins. Of course in your dream world, the guy who gets killed is the "bad" guy. How immature are you? Go to a court and you will see honest people with disagreements about who really owns a property or a shareholding all day long. The very reason courts exist is that 2 honest men can both have a legitimate claim to the same property and impartial judgement is preferable to violence. All I am saying is that if the court splits the land in half and steals from a person who by principle believes he has a rightful claim to all of the land, there was no compromise. The landowner lost. The thief one. If by some chance they are both entitled to portions of the land, then there is no compromise either. The rightful landowners will have control of their land. All I am saying is that you need to grow up. The court may award the entire plot to one of the claimants and the other will have to pay legal costs for both sides. Just because the court does that does not mean the loser was wrong to bring the case. Its perfectly normal for honest people to have honest disagreements and to use courts to settle them. What's sickening is your idea that one of these honest people should kill the other. If the people are honest, there is no need for compromise. If one is rightfully entitled to something and the other is not, there cannot be compromise either. That is the argument at hand. A murder probably won't be needed to accomplish what is right but the threat of force as a utility is inevitable. The court is an institution that is based on force after all. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: cbeast on November 09, 2011, 09:29:57 PM No, this scenario is an ad hominem to the main argument at hand. She was forced to pay into it. Any reasonable person would take back what was stolen from them. Nobody forced her to leave Russia and move to socialist America. lol Mexico is a lovely climate. So is Italy. There are dozens of other countries she could have chosen. America just happens to be the land of opportunists. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 09:33:45 PM No, this scenario is an ad hominem to the main argument at hand. She was forced to pay into it. Any reasonable person would take back what was stolen from them. Nobody forced her to leave Russia and move to socialist America. lol Mexico is a lovely climate. So is Italy. There are dozens of other countries she could have chosen. America just happens to be the land of opportunists. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 09:34:16 PM ...snip... If the people are honest, there is no need for compromise. If one is rightfully entitled to something and the other is not, there cannot be compromise either. That is the argument at hand. A murder probably won't be needed to accomplish what is right but the threat of force as a utility is inevitable. The court is an institution is based on force after all. You are being wilfully blind. Honest people have disagreements. That's life and if you really imagine that being honest means that anyone who disagrees with you is a crook, you have a sad life ahead of you. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 09:35:43 PM ...snip... If the people are honest, there is no need for compromise. If one is rightfully entitled to something and the other is not, there cannot be compromise either. That is the argument at hand. A murder probably won't be needed to accomplish what is right but the threat of force as a utility is inevitable. The court is an institution is based on force after all. You are being wilfully blind. Honest people have disagreements. That's life and if you really imagine that being honest means that anyone who disagrees with you is a crook, you have a sad life ahead of you. If somebody believes they have the right to my labor and my property, I will not be "compromising". They may honestly believe they are in the right to steal but I will stand by ownership over myself. There cannot be a compromise because for me to compromise will be to sacrifice my birthright. Again, you cannot compromise when it comes to rights or you will have none at all. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 09:39:04 PM ...snip... If the people are honest, there is no need for compromise. If one is rightfully entitled to something and the other is not, there cannot be compromise either. That is the argument at hand. A murder probably won't be needed to accomplish what is right but the threat of force as a utility is inevitable. The court is an institution is based on force after all. You are being wilfully blind. Honest people have disagreements. That's life and if you really imagine that being honest means that anyone who disagrees with you is a crook, you have a sad life ahead of you. If somebody believes they have the right to my labor and my property, I will not be "compromising". They may honestly believe they are in the right to steal but I will stand by ownership over myself. So you are back to saying that all compromise is a question of "food vs poison" ? Since that has already being dealt with, why not read the replies that came earlier and thus save us all repeating ourselves. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51375.msg612356#msg612356 Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 09:39:49 PM ...snip... If the people are honest, there is no need for compromise. If one is rightfully entitled to something and the other is not, there cannot be compromise either. That is the argument at hand. A murder probably won't be needed to accomplish what is right but the threat of force as a utility is inevitable. The court is an institution is based on force after all. You are being wilfully blind. Honest people have disagreements. That's life and if you really imagine that being honest means that anyone who disagrees with you is a crook, you have a sad life ahead of you. If somebody believes they have the right to my labor and my property, I will not be "compromising". They may honestly believe they are in the right to steal but I will stand by ownership over myself. So you are back to saying that all compromise is a question of "food vs poison" ? Yes, yes it is when it comes to questions of principles and morality. It may work elsewhere. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: cbeast on November 09, 2011, 09:41:59 PM Back to circular reasoning. Back to the ignore bin until the next incarnation.
Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 09:43:08 PM I want Whataburger but Linda wants McDonalds. I compromise and go to McDonalds because it will still satisfy me. We are both happy and nobody truly sacrificed. That is a true compromise.
I want my land that has been passed down to me by my forefathers. The government wants part of it for its whims. I sacrifice a part of my land for nothing of value in return. That is not a compromise. That is a total loss for me since one cannot compromise on their right to property. See the difference? Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 09:46:13 PM I want Whataburger but Linda wants McDonalds. I compromise and go to McDonalds because it will still satisfy me. We are both happy and nobody truly sacrificed. That is a true compromise. I want my land that has been passed down to me by my forefather's. The government wants part of it for its whims. I sacrifice a part of my land for nothing of value in return. That is not a compromise. That is a total loss for me since one cannot compromise on their right to property. See the difference? Your father didn't make a will but before he died he promised the land to you. He also promised it to your sister. Are you seriously saying that compromise is bad and that you will kill your sister? Can you see how stupid a worldview that is? Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 09:47:49 PM I want Whataburger but Linda wants McDonalds. I compromise and go to McDonalds because it will still satisfy me. We are both happy and nobody truly sacrificed. That is a true compromise. I want my land that has been passed down to me by my forefather's. The government wants part of it for its whims. I sacrifice a part of my land for nothing of value in return. That is not a compromise. That is a total loss for me since one cannot compromise on their right to property. See the difference? Your father didn't make a will but before he died he promised the land to you. He also promised it to your sister. Are you seriously saying that compromise is bad and that you will kill your sister? Can you see how stupid a worldview that is? I stand by all of my contentions. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 09:51:30 PM I want Whataburger but Linda wants McDonalds. I compromise and go to McDonalds because it will still satisfy me. We are both happy and nobody truly sacrificed. That is a true compromise. I want my land that has been passed down to me by my forefather's. The government wants part of it for its whims. I sacrifice a part of my land for nothing of value in return. That is not a compromise. That is a total loss for me since one cannot compromise on their right to property. See the difference? Your father didn't make a will but before he died he promised the land to you. He also promised it to your sister. Are you seriously saying that compromise is bad and that you will kill your sister? Can you see how stupid a worldview that is? I stand by all of my contentions. Actually that's a compromise. You started with an inheritance you were promised and agreed to share it rather than kill your sister. Welcome to the real world. You will find the same logic applies to things like land ownership, security deposits on leases and the correct level of taxation. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/us/politics/voters-defeat-many-gop-sponsored-measures.html?hp There are several examples here of situations where about 50% of the population have to endure laws they disagree with but prefer that to killing the other 50%. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 09:52:27 PM I want Whataburger but Linda wants McDonalds. I compromise and go to McDonalds because it will still satisfy me. We are both happy and nobody truly sacrificed. That is a true compromise. I want my land that has been passed down to me by my forefather's. The government wants part of it for its whims. I sacrifice a part of my land for nothing of value in return. That is not a compromise. That is a total loss for me since one cannot compromise on their right to property. See the difference? Your father didn't make a will but before he died he promised the land to you. He also promised it to your sister. Are you seriously saying that compromise is bad and that you will kill your sister? Can you see how stupid a worldview that is? I stand by all of my contentions. Actually that's a compromise. You started with an inheritance you were promised and agreed to share it rather than kill your sister. Welcome to the real world. You will find the same logic applies to things like land ownership, security deposits on leases (really I've spent years arguing with tenants over the damn things) and the correct level of taxation. The same logic does not apply to property rights. That requires sacrifice and loss. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 09:55:54 PM ...snip... Yes, it is a compromise as I said. It was a settlement of differences and not principles. Everybody ended up with the value they are entitled in the end. The same logic does not apply to property rights. That requires sacrifice and loss. You gave up the right to inherit your land, promised to you by your Dad. That is the sacrifice and loss of a property right. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 10:19:50 PM ...snip... Yes, it is a compromise as I said. It was a settlement of differences and not principles. Everybody ended up with the value they are entitled in the end. The same logic does not apply to property rights. That requires sacrifice and loss. You gave up the right to inherit your land, promised to you by your Dad. That is the sacrifice and loss of a property right. Now, if my sister were truly trying to steal my land, I would just give it to her; not out of sacrifice but out of the value she brings me. That is an exchange of value; not sacrifice. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 10:20:40 PM In summary, I believe a compromise cannot have sacrifice nor loss for either party. Such dealings only result in one winning over the other.
Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: Hawker on November 10, 2011, 01:56:05 PM ...snip... Yes, it is a compromise as I said. It was a settlement of differences and not principles. Everybody ended up with the value they are entitled in the end. The same logic does not apply to property rights. That requires sacrifice and loss. You gave up the right to inherit your land, promised to you by your Dad. That is the sacrifice and loss of a property right. Now, if my sister were truly trying to steal my land, I would just give it to her; not out of sacrifice but out of the value she brings me. That is an exchange of value; not sacrifice. The problem with your logic is you invented the fraud part. As I said before, honest people do have disagreements and the alternative to violence is compromise. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: ALPHA. on November 10, 2011, 03:09:30 PM The father committed fraud by telling two they owned the same thing. That is not an invention but the truth. The only way to enforce property rights is aggression in any case. Persuasion is a voluntary transaction. It will not prevent evil from committing its deed.
Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: Jalum on November 10, 2011, 03:33:19 PM Hi Atlas, why the new identity? Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: EhVedadoOAnonimato on November 10, 2011, 03:38:04 PM If you are on land that you believe you own and someone else believes is rightfully theirs, the choices are compromise (go to court) or violence (get a gun). There's no ethical dilemma there. Actually, if they go to court, it might actually mean both have the correct ethical principles, i.e., both agree that the rightful owner should control the land. Who's the rightful owner is not an ethical question. The quote in OP refers to compromising regarding ethical principles. And I believe I agree with it. A compromise between ethically right and ethically wrong is comparable to a compromise between food and poison. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: EhVedadoOAnonimato on November 10, 2011, 03:47:57 PM Your father didn't make a will but before he died he promised the land to you. He also promised it to your sister. Again there's no ethical dilemma in your example. That's just a problem for the heirs to solve. An ethical compromise would be something on the lines of "I agree it's wrong to steal, but in this(these) case(s) it's not". Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: chickenado on November 10, 2011, 05:40:52 PM A friend once told me, "Nature is murky and complex, therefore ethics has to be murky and complex. Everything in ethics is a grey area".
I don's see how the latter necessarily follows from the former. The whole point of ethics is that is not natural. It's a purely artificial, abstract set of rules created by humans. A bit like mathematics. Besides, even the most "mature", "moderate", and "sober" individuals are idealistic teenage extremists on some issues. Usually the ones that have been resolved by said extremists in the distant past. I have never met a "moderate" who isn't absolutist on the topics of slavery, women's suffrage, or racial segregation for instance. No stance other than Total Abolition is considered reasonable by them. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: Inedible on November 12, 2011, 08:49:24 AM Again there's no ethical dilemma in your example. That's just a problem for the heirs to solve. An ethical compromise would be something on the lines of "I agree it's wrong to steal, but in this(these) case(s) it's not". What of a situation where someone needs to steal to feed someone starving to death? Or steals medication to prevent imminent death? (e.g. anaphylactic shock) In both cases, the thief is destitute and has no means to pay. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: Inedible on November 12, 2011, 08:52:26 AM A friend once told me, "Nature is murky and complex, therefore ethics has to be murky and complex. Everything in ethics is a grey area". I don's see how the latter necessarily follows from the former. The whole point of ethics is that is not natural. It's a purely artificial, abstract set of rules created by humans. A bit like mathematics. Besides, even the most "mature", "moderate", and "sober" individuals are idealistic teenage extremists on some issues. Usually the ones that have been resolved by said extremists in the distant past. I have never met a "moderate" who isn't absolutist on the topics of slavery, women's suffrage, or racial segregation for instance. No stance other than Total Abolition is considered reasonable by them. Are you saying those moderates should consider some slavery/some women having no rights/some racial segregation being allowable to be true moderates? Or are you saying that that a moderate's position is untenable if they hold any absolutist views? Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: Hawker on November 12, 2011, 11:03:02 AM Your father didn't make a will but before he died he promised the land to you. He also promised it to your sister. Again there's no ethical dilemma in your example. That's just a problem for the heirs to solve. An ethical compromise would be something on the lines of "I agree it's wrong to steal, but in this(these) case(s) it's not". You are correct. Let's try a better example. In Ireland we have a period of 30 years we called the Troubles. Terrorists killed unarmed people almost at will based on guessing their religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers That gives you a flavour of what it was like. People pulled off the street, their teeth pulled out with pliers and then beaten to death. In 1997 a deal was done that the terrorists would stop killing people and that the terrorists in jail would be released. In effect, an amnesty for kidnappers, torturers and murderers. Most Irish people hate the deal but voted for it anyway as it was preferable to continued violence. As a result, the killings went from 150 a year to none. In a small province of 1.5 million people, there are thousands alive today that would be dead were it not for that deal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement I think you will agree that was a moral compromise. Do you think we were wrong to accept that compromise? Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: EhVedadoOAnonimato on November 12, 2011, 10:23:36 PM What of a situation where someone needs to steal to feed someone starving to death? Or steals medication to prevent imminent death? (e.g. anaphylactic shock) In both cases, the thief is destitute and has no means to pay. Nothing changes. Stealing is wrong. The ends do not justify the means. Of course, the victim may always forgive the thief - in which case there's no more a theft, but a donation. But if not forgiven, the thief must pay back his victim. (By the way, in both situations he could just ask. In most contemporaneous societies he wouldn't have a hard time finding someone willing to help. And if he lives in a society where such help just can't be found, then it's clear he's not the only one going through very hard times.) Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: EhVedadoOAnonimato on November 12, 2011, 10:34:49 PM ... I think you will agree that was a moral compromise. Do you think we were wrong to accept that compromise? I'd say it's more an act of partial surrender than of ethical compromise. You are not abandoning your principles when you surrender to an aggressor that's stronger than you. It is comparable - in a much less dramatic degree, of course - to what honest people do every time they fill their tax forms or give their wallets to an armed thug who threatens them. (It's a horrible story you tell there... such deal, did it really work out? I mean... the terrorists released, they just... stopped being terrorists? I imagine every step they took after that was closely watched, but still) Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: Hawker on November 12, 2011, 10:56:33 PM ... I think you will agree that was a moral compromise. Do you think we were wrong to accept that compromise? I'd say it's more an act of partial surrender than of ethical compromise. You are not abandoning your principles when you surrender to an aggressor that's stronger than you. It is comparable - in a much less dramatic degree, of course - to what honest people do every time they fill their tax forms or give their wallets to an armed thug who threatens them. (It's a horrible story you tell there... such deal, did it really work out? I mean... the terrorists released, they just... stopped being terrorists? I imagine every step they took after that was closely watched, but still) Yes it worked. Both sides gave up their principles and both sides by and large stopped terrorism. Sectarian violence will never stop but the paramilitary campaigns have been history for 15 years. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: ALPHA. on November 12, 2011, 11:04:39 PM If there wasn't organized oppression, there wouldn't be organized resistance and what we call terrorism wouldn't exist.
Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: Hawker on November 13, 2011, 09:15:38 AM If there wasn't organized oppression, there wouldn't be organized resistance and what we call terrorism wouldn't exist. You are kidding yourself. No-one oppressed the Shankill Butchers - they simply wanted more power for their version of Christianity. Bad people exist - you are deluding yourself if you think that some change in the law will remove that fact that there are people who like to organise for their religion or tribe and kill people from another religion or tribe. Its hard-wired into our human nature and every legal system has to deal with it. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: EhVedadoOAnonimato on November 13, 2011, 03:03:24 PM ... I think you will agree that was a moral compromise. Do you think we were wrong to accept that compromise? I'd say it's more an act of partial surrender than of ethical compromise. You are not abandoning your principles when you surrender to an aggressor that's stronger than you. It is comparable - in a much less dramatic degree, of course - to what honest people do every time they fill their tax forms or give their wallets to an armed thug who threatens them. (It's a horrible story you tell there... such deal, did it really work out? I mean... the terrorists released, they just... stopped being terrorists? I imagine every step they took after that was closely watched, but still) Yes it worked. Both sides gave up their principles... How conveniently you ignore my first paragraph. You don't give up on your principles when you surrender to someone threatening you. Title: Re: The Myth of Compromise Post by: Hawker on November 13, 2011, 03:18:26 PM ... I think you will agree that was a moral compromise. Do you think we were wrong to accept that compromise? I'd say it's more an act of partial surrender than of ethical compromise. You are not abandoning your principles when you surrender to an aggressor that's stronger than you. It is comparable - in a much less dramatic degree, of course - to what honest people do every time they fill their tax forms or give their wallets to an armed thug who threatens them. (It's a horrible story you tell there... such deal, did it really work out? I mean... the terrorists released, they just... stopped being terrorists? I imagine every step they took after that was closely watched, but still) Yes it worked. Both sides gave up their principles... How conveniently you ignore my first paragraph. You don't give up on your principles when you surrender to someone threatening you. In situations like Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Israel/Palestine or wherever you have these tribal type wars, both sides are aggressors and both sides are victims. Neither side was defeated. Neither side could be said to have gotten justice. Both sides abandoned principles that good men died for. |
