I can agree with that. yes, i support rehabilitation.
Then can you explain how locking a man in a cage will achieve that? , the cage is there to limit his possibilities while he is getting rehabilitated. Ultimately, the point is, if you understand my position, if you understand why violence is not a barrel of monkeys, and if you understand that supporting the state will inevitably kill someone you probably won't know, and you're still okay with it, then you lack empathy.
i have already stated that i have autism, and lack empathy but not logic. if the state gives me a better chance of survival, then a crazy ass anarchistic system, i will take my chances. In other words, you don't connect with other people as if they were people. i know what it means, and its not that. From that point, there's no argument; oh, yes there is. are you giving up? you're not like me, who does feel something about hurting people, so we're never going to see eye-to-eye on anything. You're the same breed of robot that the system loves to reward. i gets rewarded, yay!  I don't know how to help you out, there. You can't. don't feel bad that you fail it serves no purpose, i can only emulate empathy. |
|
|
|
You lock him up.
Dude, what is your fetish with cages? In what way is putting a man in a cage resisting with proportional force? You don't "lock him up," you prevent or stop him hitting you. Simple as that. ... so he can do it again? NO, you lock him up! Do you not believe in rehabilitation? depends on the definition. "the restoration of someone to a useful place in society." I can agree with that. yes, i support rehabilitation. |
|
|
|
You lock him up.
Dude, what is your fetish with cages? In what way is putting a man in a cage resisting with proportional force? You don't "lock him up," you prevent or stop him hitting you. Simple as that. ... so he can do it again? NO, you lock him up! Do you not believe in rehabilitation? depends on the definition. (on the fetish thing: yes i have.)
Well, that explains a few things. Please explain that comment, and try not to make any assumptions about me. I have a whole different perspective then you. |
|
|
|
You lock him up.
Dude, what is your fetish with cages? In what way is putting a man in a cage resisting with proportional force? You don't "lock him up," you prevent or stop him hitting you. Simple as that. ... so he can do it again? NO, you lock him up! (on the fetish thing: yes i have.) |
|
|
|
|
this theory have been discussed before and i don't remember the conclusion...
|
|
|
|
No, your interpretation is wrong. If anyone punches you in the face for being from Denmark, you have every right to be mad. You did nothing.
and still somehow the other person felt provoked... don't you find that odd? Yes, because I find all forms of insanity "odd." okay. He does not agree with you, call him insane and lock him up. Great solution. No, He considers place of birth provocation for violence, call him insane and resist violence with proportionate force.You lock him up. |
|
|
|
No, your interpretation is wrong. If anyone punches you in the face for being from Denmark, you have every right to be mad. You did nothing.
and still somehow the other person felt provoked... don't you find that odd? Yes, because I find all forms of insanity "odd." okay. He does not agree with you, call him insane and lock him up. Great solution. |
|
|
|
No, your interpretation is wrong. If anyone punches you in the face for being from Denmark, you have every right to be mad. You did nothing.
and still somehow the other person felt provoked... don't you find that odd? |
|
|
|
Now we must define provocation...
pro·voke
/prəˈvōk/
Verb
Stimulate or give rise to (a reaction or emotion, typically a strong or unwelcome one) in someone.
Stimulate or incite (someone) to do or feel something, esp. by arousing anger in them.
Let's just assume that "doing nothing" cannot be in line with "provocation," because "doing nothing" implies no verb has taken place.
oh, i can provoke by doing nothing. your interpretation is wrong. |
|
|
|
Are you okay with violence being used against me, even when I have not provoked it?
but you have, by not following the rules. And if those rules said that I owned you, completely? i have provoked you, but i don't see that you have the power to enforce that rule, so i will laugh at you. |
|
|
|
but you have, by not following the rules.
So if I was sitting in my home, minding my own business, and then someone burst in and said, "GIVE ME ALL YOUR MONEY OR YOU WILL GO TO JAIL, AND IF YOU RESIST I WILL KILL YOU" It's okay if it's a law. So how's the box working out for ya? i see no question mark after your first statement. and i don't understand your second... |
|
|
|
I'm still not hearing "No, statists are not sociopathic proxy killers, because:"
Stop dancing around the issue. Do you, or do you not, agree that you or I need to die to make sure everyone plays to the same rules? This is the very core of the state, that gooey chocolaty center. I don't want to talk about "Well this issue with corporatism" or "We're not really slaves because such and such." I want to hear you say, "I understand the state, this is what it does, and upon understanding that violence is not only encouraged, but vital, for the state to exist, I have determined that I agree with/disagree with the state and its course of action." Until we make this point absolutely clear, we cannot proceed to nit-pick at individual issues. Let's zoom out and figure this very basic part out first.
Are you okay with violence being used against me, even when I have not provoked it?
but you have, by not following the rules. |
|
|
|
|
forums are not the way to contact bitstamp...
internet people are really fail sometimes...
|
|
|
|
|
you people are assuming that stuff is linear. stuff are not linear.
|
|
|
|
Can it be their decision, if God had decreed, long before they were even born, that they would make it?
If I program a robot to kill someone, who do we punish?
Yes, because humans are operating in accordance with their nature, which has been radically altered from its created state. And your example is not analogous. Robots cannot make decisions because there's nothing there. It's just an empty shell. Again, I direct you to Romans. if you accept this "fact", you must accept that humans are too. humans are only a really complex one, but both me and the robot are build from atoms. |
|
|
|
Except you do have free will. Not even the Church claims determinism anymore.
true, i don't have free will, and im okay with that. life would still be very interesting, as i can't predict the future.  |
|
|
|
Did you even read the explanations of those premises? Especially the last one: If I argue that human beings are not responsible for their actions, I am caught in a paradox, which is the question of whether or not I am responsible for my argument, and also whether or not you are responsible for your response.
If my argument that human beings are not responsible for their actions is true, then I am not responsible for my argument, and you are not responsible for your reply. However, if I believe that you are not responsible for your reply, it would make precious little sense to advance an argument – it would be exactly the same as arguing with a television set. (The question of responsibility is, of course, closely related to the question of free will versus determinism, which will be the subject of another book.)
Thus, fundamentally, if I tell you that you are not responsible for your actions, I am telling you that it is universally preferable for you to believe that preference is impossible, since if you have no control over your actions, you cannot choose a preferred state, i.e. truth over falsehood. Thus this argument, like the above arguments, self-destructs. Did you read it? he is assuming non-determinism, or at least soft-determinism. I just have to assume hard-determinism which is, to refute his argument. So now you're not just a brain in a vat, but a computer program in a vat? I would have no way of determining that. but its just at likely as anything else. Except you do have free will. Not even the Church claims determinism anymore. true, i don't have free will, and im okay with that. life would still be very interesting, as i can't predict the future. |
|
|
|
Did you even read the explanations of those premises? Especially the last one: If I argue that human beings are not responsible for their actions, I am caught in a paradox, which is the question of whether or not I am responsible for my argument, and also whether or not you are responsible for your response.
If my argument that human beings are not responsible for their actions is true, then I am not responsible for my argument, and you are not responsible for your reply. However, if I believe that you are not responsible for your reply, it would make precious little sense to advance an argument – it would be exactly the same as arguing with a television set. (The question of responsibility is, of course, closely related to the question of free will versus determinism, which will be the subject of another book.)
Thus, fundamentally, if I tell you that you are not responsible for your actions, I am telling you that it is universally preferable for you to believe that preference is impossible, since if you have no control over your actions, you cannot choose a preferred state, i.e. truth over falsehood. Thus this argument, like the above arguments, self-destructs. Did you read it? he is assuming non-determinism, or at least soft-determinism. I just have to assume hard-determinism which is, to refute his argument. So now you're not just a brain in a vat, but a computer program in a vat? I would have no way of determining that. but its just at likely as anything else. |
|
|
|
and what if i traded person-2-person with a friend? whoops, your system is broken.
You can trade person-2-persion with a friend without submitting order to the blochain. This will not affect the exchange rate. what if i write a forum post saying that i will pay 5 times the amount that the blockchain say i should, and just buy all? |
|
|
|
and what if i traded person-2-person with a friend? whoops, your system is broken.
You can trade person-2-persion with a friend without submitting order to the blochain. This will not affect the exchange rate. How do you trade BTC without going through the block-chain? Did I miss the first day of school? this is not a Bitcoin thread, its a though experiment. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
