Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[fergalish]

Exactly!  Any individual's idea of acceptable behaviour is just an opinion.  Now, please provide a better response, or admit that you can offer no alternative to MightMakesRight where any arbitrary conflict is not clearly addressed by some contract between the conflicting parties.

Of course there are alternatives. That much is obvious. I just can't say that any alternative is factually true. Asking me whose opinion we should follow is like asking me which football team you should root for. My team, of course.

So give us some examples of alternatives that can consistently prevent violence in the case of gun ownership and perceived threats.  Your analogy with football is incorrect and useless.  There is no inherent conflict if two people support different teams and here we're talking specifically about conflict.  What you're suggesting is like asking which should be your favourite colour - my favourite colour, of course.

[Hawker]

Exactly!  Any individual's idea of acceptable behaviour is just an opinion.  Now, please provide a better response, or admit that you can offer no alternative to MightMakesRight where any arbitrary conflict is not clearly addressed by some contract between the conflicting parties.

Of course there are alternatives. That much is obvious. I just can't say that any alternative is factually true. Asking me whose opinion we should follow is like asking me which football team you should root for. My team, of course.

So give us some examples of alternatives that can consistently prevent violence in the case of gun ownership and perceived threats.  Your analogy with football is incorrect and useless.  There is no inherent conflict if two people support different teams and here we're talking specifically about conflict.  What you're suggesting is like asking which should be your favourite colour - my favourite colour, of course.

b2c doesn't care about violence.  b2c's position is that it doesn't matter if all of humanity dies - what matters is that our rights live on.  And he doesn't believe our rights include the right to prevent someone killing you.

...snip...

Even if the world ends up as a nuclear wasteland, I would choose that over violating a single person's rights.

So there is no point asking him to come up with a position that involves benefits like reduced violence.  His view is that real world consequences don't matter.  If you have to die in order for his right to a nuke to be protected, then sucks to be you. 

[Hawker]

Ownership and intent don't matter.  If its there, its a threat and must be disarmed.  If you fail to disarm it, you are at the mercy of the person in control.  He doesn't have to leave home but he may as well have a blade at your throat.

You already know this - you agreed that society has the right to use the best way to protect itself from nukes.  I'm not sure why you want me to lead you through the same baby steps to sanity again.

You're a liar. I said if it was the best way, and it was determined that there was intent to do harm. 'And' not 'Or'. Possession and intent is necessary. Discuss intent, or I have nothing more to say to you.

If someone is pointing a gun at you, do you have to ask his intent?  No - its dangerous.  He may love you and hurting you may be the last thing he wants.  But if he is pointing a gun at you, you have to stop him.  Intent is irrelevant.  You are free to protect yourself.

If someone has a nuke and you are in range, the only difference from him pointing a gun at you is that there is no way for the nuke to miss.  Do you have to ask his intent?  No - its dangerous.  He may love you and hurting you may be the last thing he wants.  But if he has a nuclear weapon and can kill you, you have to stop him.  Intent is irrelevant.  You are free to protect yourself.

You already know this to be true.  Why are you even arguing?

[BitterTea]

Assumption:

If there is a direct threat of violence, the use of violence in response is morally acceptable.

Questions:

If an individual owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?

If a state owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?

[FirstAscent]

If an individual owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?

If a state owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?

The state you live in? The two aren't the same. Anyone who thinks the analogy works suffers in a bad way, and I pity them. And it's a fact, I am starting to pity some of the individuals here based on their reasoning abilities, beliefs, and desperate statements they make to defend the costume they've donned while playing political rebel.

[FredericBastiat]

If an individual owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?

If a state owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?

The state you live in? The two aren't the same. Anyone who thinks the analogy works suffers in a bad way, and I pity them. And it's a fact, I am starting to pity some of the individuals here based on their reasoning abilities, beliefs, and desperate statements they make to defend the costume they've donned while playing political rebel.

Please enlighten us oh wise one. Answer the question. And if you think he's referring to a State within the United States of America, you're just being coy. The STATE as in statist STATE a.k.a. your GOVERNMENT.

[Hawker]

Assumption:

If there is a direct threat of violence, the use of violence in response is morally acceptable.

Questions:

If an individual owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?

If a state owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?

A nuke that is within range is like a load gun pointed at your face.  It may be that the person doing it has no bad intentions, it may even be that the safety catch is on but you cannot allow them to carry on as sooner or later there will be a bang.  So yes, if an individual owns a nuclear weapon and its under his control and you are in range, its a direct threat.

Same applies to a state.  If its your own state, you can campaign to get them into an arms reduction treaty.  If its an ally, you can campaign to have your government lobby that state to enter an arms reduction treaty.  If its an enemy, you need your government to act on your behalf to remove the threat, ideally with an arms reduction treaty.

At the moment, parts of the world are dismantling their nukes and other parts are trying to get nukes.  We are still at the stage where a US/Russian war would result in human extinction.  Hopefully the reductions will continue.

[FirstAscent]

If an individual owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?

If a state owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?

The state you live in? The two aren't the same. Anyone who thinks the analogy works suffers in a bad way, and I pity them. And it's a fact, I am starting to pity some of the individuals here based on their reasoning abilities, beliefs, and desperate statements they make to defend the costume they've donned while playing political rebel.

Please enlighten us oh wise one. Answer the question. And if you think he's referring to a State within the United States of America, you're just being coy. The STATE as in statist STATE a.k.a. your GOVERNMENT.

I'm well aware of that. You're even dumber than I thought if, after reading all of my posts, you'd think I thought he meant a state of the USA. Is that the best commentary you could come up with?

[FirstAscent]

Same applies to a state. 

So the US government is the same as Timothy McVeigh?

[FredericBastiat]

The state you live in? The two aren't the same. Anyone who thinks the analogy works suffers in a bad way, and I pity them. And it's a fact, I am starting to pity some of the individuals here based on their reasoning abilities, beliefs, and desperate statements they make to defend the costume they've donned while playing political rebel.

I'm well aware of that. You're even dumber than I thought if, after reading all of my posts, you'd think I thought he meant a state of the USA. Is that the best commentary you could come up with?

Here, I highlighted it for you. You referred to a place, not a sovereign political entity. Dumb, whose dumb? Admit you were wrong and get on with it.

[FirstAscent]

Does this guy's views remind anyone here of anyone: Wikipedia entry.

[FirstAscent]

The state you live in? The two aren't the same. Anyone who thinks the analogy works suffers in a bad way, and I pity them. And it's a fact, I am starting to pity some of the individuals here based on their reasoning abilities, beliefs, and desperate statements they make to defend the costume they've donned while playing political rebel.

I'm well aware of that. You're even dumber than I thought if, after reading all of my posts, you'd think I thought he meant a state of the USA. Is that the best commentary you could come up with?

Here, I highlighted it for you. You referred to a place, not a sovereign political entity. Dumb, whose dumb? Admit you were wrong and get on with it.

Yes, I admit that your posts are so annoying that I often rapidly type out a response, without spending time working out the formally correct wording. I should have said "The state which governs the region you live in." Forgive me for not spending the proper amount of time necessary to satisfy a nutcase.

[FredericBastiat]

Does this guy's views remind anyone here of anyone: Wikipedia entry.

I don't advocate violence. I however have no problem aligning myself with the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Locke, Madison, Bastiat and Spooner.

[FirstAscent]

Does this guy's views remind anyone here of anyone: Wikipedia entry.

I don't advocate violence. I however have no problem aligning myself with the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Locke, Madison, Bastiat and Spooner.

Ah, so you do know that that guy's views will remind others here of you.

Tell me, Mr. "I can't think things through", if you don't advocate violence, then why do you advocate that others should be able to have nuclear bombs in their garage? Other people, like Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, the Unabomber, and other such malcontents, such as the Anthrax mailer.

[FirstAscent]

Answer the above question.

[FredericBastiat]

Ah, so you do know that that guy's views will remind others here of you.

Tell me, Mr. "I can't think things through", if you don't advocate violence, then why do you advocate that others should be able to have nuclear bombs in their garage? Other people, like Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, the Unabomber, and other such malcontents, such as the Anthrax mailer.

I would say that I'm entirely opposed to the idea that Tim, Terry, the Anthrax mailer and other malcontents whose intent is to cause harm, should have any kind of weapon, much less a nuclear weapon. There, did that sufficiently answer your question?

[FirstAscent]

Ah, so you do know that that guy's views will remind others here of you.

Tell me, Mr. "I can't think things through", if you don't advocate violence, then why do you advocate that others should be able to have nuclear bombs in their garage? Other people, like Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, the Unabomber, and other such malcontents, such as the Anthrax mailer.

I would say that I'm entirely opposed to the idea that Tim, Terry, the Anthrax mailer and other malcontents whose intent is to cause harm, should have any kind of weapon, much less a nuclear weapon. There, did that sufficiently answer your question?

Tell me how you measure intent of some individual that you have never met, nor even know exists?

[NghtRppr]

So give us some examples of alternatives that can consistently prevent violence in the case of gun ownership and perceived threats.

You're moving goalposts. You asked for alternatives to "might makes right".

[FredericBastiat]

Tell me how you measure intent of some individual that you have never met, nor even know exists?

Riddles eh? Okay, two can play this game. How do you know the sun is hot unless you can touch it?

[NghtRppr]

A nuke that is within range is like a load gun pointed at your face.

No, it's not. Even if the gun is unloaded and they are pointing it at you, if you don't know it's unloaded you can still defend yourself with violence. You don't have to ask if it's loaded. The key issue is the threat, not the risk of danger. We drive around bombs all day. My car could explode at any time and kill you if you are next to it. Is that a threat? No.