Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[FirstAscent]

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?

Are you dodging the question because your whole premise is starting to feel shaky? Answer my question: How do you measure intent of some individual that you have never met, nor even know exists?

[1714048941]

1714048941

[1714048941]

1714048941

[1714048941]

1714048941

[1714048941]

1714048941

[1714048941]

1714048941

[FredericBastiat]

Are you dodging the question because your whole premise is starting to feel shaky? Answer my question: How do you measure intent of some individual that you have never met, nor even know exists?

No not dodging, just trying to make a point. If you don't know something exists because you haven't experienced it yet, there's nothing to do about it. You don't even know what it is. I use the sun example because we all know the sun exists by indirect observation.

In the situation where you have 'nutcases', as you call them, they tend to interact with their environment. This interaction can be observed indirectly. To wit, I just observe their behaviors and notice things about how they (re)act in certain circumstances. If their behavior becomes violently inclined, I should probably prepare to defend myself. Once it's determined that you or I believe their actions rise to the level of imminent threat, we intervene, but not until then; and then we deal with all of the consequences that follow.

But then you knew that. Maybe you're just worried I don't care, or I'm another one of your 'nutcases' laying in wait. Still concerned?

[Hawker]

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.

Bingo!  You can defend yourself because a gun pointing at you, even if you don't ask without asking if its loaded.  The guy may be drunk and playing some silly game but you can defend yourself.  You don't have to say "Excuse me, is this a threat that entitled me to use violence, sir?"

The exact same logic applies to a nuke.

BTW, if your car with Semtex, you may not intend to use it as a bomb but you are a threat.  Lets agree to compare like with like.

You know all this - you asked a variant of the same question days ago and got the same answer.  I'm increasing puzzled as to why you are making this case - are you just messing about seeing how long people answer you ?  

[FirstAscent]

Are you dodging the question because your whole premise is starting to feel shaky? Answer my question: How do you measure intent of some individual that you have never met, nor even know exists?

No not dodging, just trying to make a point. If you don't know something exists because you haven't experienced it yet, there's nothing to do about it. You don't even know what it is. I use the sun example because we all know the sun exists by indirect observation.

In the situation where you have 'nutcases', as you call them, they tend to interact with their environment. This interaction can be observed indirectly. To wit, I just observe their behaviors and notice things about how they (re)act in certain circumstances. If their behavior becomes violently inclined, I should probably prepare to defend myself. Once it's determined that you or I believe their actions rise to the level of imminent threat, we intervene, but not until then; and then we deal with all of the consequences that follow.

But then you knew that. Maybe you're just worried I don't care, or I'm another one of your 'nutcases' laying in wait. Still concerned?

The correct answer is: you can't really measure the intent of people before it's too late. If we could, we wouldn't have incidents like the Oklahoma City bombing. I think you'll find it hard to refute that the Oklahoma City bombing occurred. But you're free to try, if you want. Assuming that you accept that the Oklahoma City bombing occurred, then you'll probably have to accept that the intent of McVeigh and Nichols was not properly measured beforehand, disproving your suggestion that observations will always yield meaningful data before it's too late.

Your arguments are falling flat on their face, but that was obvious to most of us anyway. Do you care to attempt to refute the points in the above paragraph?

[Hawker]

Are you dodging the question because your whole premise is starting to feel shaky? Answer my question: How do you measure intent of some individual that you have never met, nor even know exists?

No not dodging, just trying to make a point. If you don't know something exists because you haven't experienced it yet, there's nothing to do about it. You don't even know what it is. I use the sun example because we all know the sun exists by indirect observation.

In the situation where you have 'nutcases', as you call them, they tend to interact with their environment. This interaction can be observed indirectly. To wit, I just observe their behaviors and notice things about how they (re)act in certain circumstances. If their behavior becomes violently inclined, I should probably prepare to defend myself. Once it's determined that you or I believe their actions rise to the level of imminent threat, we intervene, but not until then; and then we deal with all of the consequences that follow.

But then you knew that. Maybe you're just worried I don't care, or I'm another one of your 'nutcases' laying in wait. Still concerned?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers

Read what they did and notice that the majority of them had no criminal records until jailed for kidnapping, pulling the victims teeth out with pliers and torturing them to death.  Their only weakness was being members of the UVF which regards the existence of Catholics as a thread to the liberty of Britons everywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Volunteer_Force

The UVF still exists.  It kills a few people every year.  It is a secret army, totally illegal and has over 1000 members, again mostly with clean criminal records apart from those in jail for attacks on Catholics.

These are the people who will be first to buy nukes.  They have the money and they have the targets.  They are not "nutcases" - if you are allowing free access to nuclear weapons, you are arming them.

As you probably guessed, I come from the community they prey on.  We have our hard men as well who regularly kill people and the PSNI can't do a thing as no-one dares talk.  I met the guy who planted a bomb in Chelsea Barracks.  I know he would have used a nuke if that was the order he was given.

Fred, I don't know why you are arguing that we have to wait for the detonator to be pressed.  If these guys have nukes, they have them for the purpose of killing lots of people.  In the 1970's they were interned because they were killing so many people the courts could not keep up.  In your system, that wouldn't be an issue would it?  One suicidal volunteer and a loud bang and the Catholic area they hate is vaporised.  The blessed volunteer goes straight to heaven and lives forever in murals.

And yes, you have said you don't care so I don't think you care.  Feel free to tell me otherwise but do so with a system that doesn't involve sitting around twiddling our thumbs while we wait for mass murder.

[FredericBastiat]

The correct answer is: you can't really measure the intent of people before it's too late. If we could, we wouldn't have incidents like the Oklahoma City bombing. I think you'll find it hard to refute that the Oklahoma City bombing occurred. But you're free to try, if you want. Assuming that you accept that the Oklahoma City bombing occurred, then you'll probably have to accept that the intent of McVeigh and Nichols was not properly measured beforehand, disproving your suggestion that observations will always yield meaningful data before it's too late.

Your arguments are falling flat on their face, but that was obvious to most of us anyway. Do you care to attempt to refute the points in the above paragraph?

I won't refute anything provided sufficient evidence or logic. Obviously the Oklahoma City bombing happened. I'm not disputing that fact. The intent of McVeigh and Nichols was improperly acted upon retrospectively. Bad things happen. That will likely never change as long as violent individuals exist. I also never suggested that observation will always result in meaningful data, although I agree with that statment anyways, at least in this case. The observation did in fact yield meaningful data, just not helpful intervention.

There's nothing wrong with my arguments and they're as sound as ever.

[NghtRppr]

BTW, if your car with Semtex, you may not intend to use it as a bomb but you are a threat.

Are you saying that a tanker truck full of gasoline driving next to you isn't just as destructive as a bomb? That's a rhetorical question. We both know that it is. That blows your argument out of the water.

[AyeYo]

The correct answer is: you can't really measure the intent of people before it's too late. If we could, we wouldn't have incidents like the Oklahoma City bombing. I think you'll find it hard to refute that the Oklahoma City bombing occurred. But you're free to try, if you want. Assuming that you accept that the Oklahoma City bombing occurred, then you'll probably have to accept that the intent of McVeigh and Nichols was not properly measured beforehand, disproving your suggestion that observations will always yield meaningful data before it's too late.

Your arguments are falling flat on their face, but that was obvious to most of us anyway. Do you care to attempt to refute the points in the above paragraph?

I won't refute anything provided sufficient evidence or logic. Obviously the Oklahoma City bombing happened. I'm not disputing that fact. The intent of McVeigh and Nichols was improperly acted upon retrospectively. Bad things happen. That will likely never change as long as violent individuals exist. I also never suggested that observation will always result in meaningful data, although I agree with that statment anyways, at least in this case. The observation did in fact yield meaningful data, just not helpful intervention.

There's nothing wrong with my arguments and they're as sound as ever.

Then you admit that unrestricted nukes guarantees they are used and that millions or more are killed... And you're still ok with it. Cool. That's a totally logical position.

[FirstAscent]

The correct answer is: you can't really measure the intent of people before it's too late. If we could, we wouldn't have incidents like the Oklahoma City bombing. I think you'll find it hard to refute that the Oklahoma City bombing occurred. But you're free to try, if you want. Assuming that you accept that the Oklahoma City bombing occurred, then you'll probably have to accept that the intent of McVeigh and Nichols was not properly measured beforehand, disproving your suggestion that observations will always yield meaningful data before it's too late.

Your arguments are falling flat on their face, but that was obvious to most of us anyway. Do you care to attempt to refute the points in the above paragraph?

I won't refute anything provided sufficient evidence or logic. Obviously the Oklahoma City bombing happened. I'm not disputing that fact. The intent of McVeigh and Nichols was improperly acted upon retrospectively. Bad things happen. That will likely never change as long as violent individuals exist. I also never suggested that observation will always result in meaningful data, although I agree with that statment anyways, at least in this case. The observation did in fact yield meaningful data, just not helpful intervention.

There's nothing wrong with my arguments and they're as sound as ever.

Just so you know, you lost this argument a long time ago. You know it. We know it. You can continue to put up a show if you want, be we all know that when you go to bed at night, you're well aware that your arguments have failed.

[fergalish]

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".

Exactly!  I've been asking for alternatives to MightMakesRight all along.  You are proposing a libertarian world in which we can all behave pretty much as we please (to the extent that we can even carry nuclear weapons with us), and yet you seem unwilling or unable to propose an alternative to MightMakesRight as a method for solving conflict.  I mean, if a conflict descends into violence, then can we agree that the winner is decided by MightMakesRight?  I'll presume so.  So I want to know: what alternatives are there to resolve unforeseen conflict, that we can reliably use to avoid a violent confrontation.  Please specify a couple (you said they were obvious, see quote below) - and please take into account that every person will have a different idea of what constitutes a threat and what constitutes an actual aggression.  So your Non-Aggression rule is not even written in sand, it's written in the sand of a sandstorm.

Just for the record, here's the quote I am referring to:

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. <snip>

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.

Imagine this: you're passing through a strange neighbourhood you've heard bad stories about.  A child/young adult (let's say 15 yrs old for argument's sake) points a realistic toy gun at you.  You have a split-second to react.  What would you do, and I refer specifically to the bold text in the quote above.

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?

Come on, Fred, this is pathetic debating on your part.  If you're reduced to this, then I'll not be paying much attention to you anymore.  The question FirstAscent puts to you is pertinent - you propose "intent" as the parameter which defines whether or not an individual should be, umm, 'regulated', and yet you ridicule an attempt to measure that intent.

[NghtRppr]

You are proposing a libertarian world in which we can all behave pretty much as we please (to the extent that we can even carry nuclear weapons with us), and yet you seem unwilling or unable to propose an alternative to MightMakesRight as a method for solving conflict.

Libertarianism isn't based on "might makes right". I don't think you understand what that phrase implies. The phrase "might makes right" implies that if you want to do something and I'm not strong enough to stop you, it automatically makes it right. Contrast that with Libertarianism. Even if I'm not strong enough to stop you from robbing me, that doesn't make it right.

A child/young adult (let's say 15 yrs old for argument's sake) points a realistic toy gun at you.  You have a split-second to react.  What would you do, and I refer specifically to the bold text in the quote above.

There's not enough information there to answer that. What are the circumstances? A single sentence doesn't give me the same information that being in the actual situation would. What's his body language like? Is he smiling? Does he look angry? Does he have friends? Am I walking or in a car? Ultimately, it depends on how scared I am and how reasonable the threat seems. You haven't given me enough information to determine how I would feel. In some cases, shooting someone pointing just a toy gun at you is reasonable, though unfortunate. In other cases, it's not reasonable at all. If it's a 3-year-old siting in his front lawn grinning at you and saying "Bang! Bang!" then no. Whatever you do, you'll have to justify by explaining how and why you felt scared and threatened.

[deuxmill]

Are you dodging the question because your whole premise is starting to feel shaky? Answer my question: How do you measure intent of some individual that you have never met, nor even know exists?

No not dodging, just trying to make a point. If you don't know something exists because you haven't experienced it yet, there's nothing to do about it. You don't even know what it is. I use the sun example because we all know the sun exists by indirect observation.

In the situation where you have 'nutcases', as you call them, they tend to interact with their environment. This interaction can be observed indirectly. To wit, I just observe their behaviors and notice things about how they (re)act in certain circumstances. If their behavior becomes violently inclined, I should probably prepare to defend myself. Once it's determined that you or I believe their actions rise to the level of imminent threat, we intervene, but not until then; and then we deal with all of the consequences that follow.

But then you knew that. Maybe you're just worried I don't care, or I'm another one of your 'nutcases' laying in wait. Still concerned?

The correct answer is: you can't really measure the intent of people before it's too late. If we could, we wouldn't have incidents like the Oklahoma City bombing. I think you'll find it hard to refute that the Oklahoma City bombing occurred. But you're free to try, if you want. Assuming that you accept that the Oklahoma City bombing occurred, then you'll probably have to accept that the intent of McVeigh and Nichols was not properly measured beforehand, disproving your suggestion that observations will always yield meaningful data before it's too late.

Your arguments are falling flat on their face, but that was obvious to most of us anyway. Do you care to attempt to refute the points in the above paragraph?

Please Please answer this question.

If anti violence vaccine would be discovered would you want a law to force everybody to take it?

Please .

[Rassah]

Please Please answer this question.

If anti violence vaccine would be discovered would you want a law to force everybody to take it?

Please .

Is this a Firefly reference?

[deuxmill]

Please Please answer this question.

If anti violence vaccine would be discovered would you want a law to force everybody to take it?

Please .

Is this a Firefly reference?

I don't know . Might be . Is it a movie? If it is i need to watch it. But does it matter?

[Hawker]

BTW, if your car with Semtex, you may not intend to use it as a bomb but you are a threat.

Are you saying that a tanker truck full of gasoline driving next to you isn't just as destructive as a bomb? That's a rhetorical question. We both know that it is. That blows your argument out of the water.

You are now editing my posts to avoid the fact that your logic is flawed.

Fail.  

Really, its sad that you can't argue your case so you reduce yourself to comparing apples to oranges or weapons to consumables.  Can't you at least try to make an intelligent response?

[Hawker]

Please Please answer this question.

If anti violence vaccine would be discovered would you want a law to force everybody to take it?

Please .

No - we are what we are.  The trick is to acknowledge that we are prone to irrational violence and plan accordingly.  Army, police, courts, weapons and walls are all needed.  Equipping people with nukes, chemical or biological weapons would simply mean that we all die and personally I don't think that's a good outcome.

[Rassah]

Please Please answer this question.

If anti violence vaccine would be discovered would you want a law to force everybody to take it?

Please .

Is this a Firefly reference?

I don't know . Might be . Is it a movie? If it is i need to watch it. But does it matter?

Ah, sorry, Serenity is the name of the movie based on the Firefly TV series http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_(film)
SPOILER






In summary, a space sci-fi flick where the interplanetary government is taking over and oppressing the planets, and a group of smugglers (the heroes) are rebels fighting against it. That world is plagued by some really messed up race of what used to be humans, who kill indiscriminately and cannibalize their victims. In the movie you find out that the source of those super-violent cannibals was a government experiment on a distant planet, where they forced everyone to take drugs that would make them docile and nonviolent. Most of the planet's population became so docile and apathetic, they just sat there and did nothing until they died.

[fergalish]

You are proposing a libertarian world in which we can all behave pretty much as we please (to the extent that we can even carry nuclear weapons with us), and yet you seem unwilling or unable to propose an alternative to MightMakesRight as a method for solving conflict.

Libertarianism isn't based on "might makes right". I don't think you understand what that phrase implies. The phrase "might makes right" implies that if you want to do something and I'm not strong enough to stop you, it automatically makes it right. Contrast that with Libertarianism. Even if I'm not strong enough to stop you from robbing me, that doesn't make it right.

We've already established that there is no universal "right", no universal "morality".  The winner *says* what's right, and everyone involved kowtows.  But, just to entertain you, let's say "MightMakesWinner" and we can stop caring about what's 'right' and 'wrong' and about vague shadowy lines-in-the-sand.  Now, let me repeat the question: what alternative do you offer to "MightMakesWinner" in the case where a conflict is heading to violence.

And, I hope I don't have to lecture you on the evolution of morality, but, as they say, the winner writes the history books.  Just imagine how evil and 'wrong' Roosevelt & Churchill might have been portrayed... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_energy_project

A child/young adult (let's say 15 yrs old for argument's sake) points a realistic toy gun at you.  You have a split-second to react.  What would you do, and I refer specifically to the bold text in the quote above.

There's not enough information there to answer that. What are the circumstances? A single sentence doesn't give me the same information that being in the actual situation would. What's his body language like? Is he smiling? Does he look angry? Does he have friends? Am I walking or in a car? Ultimately, it depends on how scared I am and how reasonable the threat seems. You haven't given me enough information to determine how I would feel. In some cases, shooting someone pointing just a toy gun at you is reasonable, though unfortunate. In other cases, it's not reasonable at all. If it's a 3-year-old siting in his front lawn grinning at you and saying "Bang! Bang!" then no. Whatever you do, you'll have to justify by explaining how and why you felt scared and threatened.

Use your imagination.  Oh, well, use mine.  It's evening time and there's not enough light for you to see his face.  His body language says he might be high, or just suffering ADHD.  You're on a bicycle.  A group of men of the neighbourhood are standing on the corner, smoking & watching you, while others are walking past shops with boarded-up windows and faded strip-joint advertisements.  A streetlight flickers eerily.  The road you're on clearly says, in it's terms and condition, that firearms are not permitted but the kid isn't actually on the road and... like I say... [voice deepens, eyebrows furrow] you've heard some bad stories.


In case you hadn't noticed, you've been trapped you into contradicting yourself even though I specifically drew your attention to your previous relevant statement.  Let me quote you again:

[If] 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.

That's a pretty clear statement.  No ambiguity.  But now you seem to be stating that there are conditions to your right to defend yourself?  Whether the supposed shooter has the right 'body language' or not, whether he is f%&king SMILING or not, whether YOU'RE IN A CAR OR NOT, whether HIS FRIENDS are with him or not... what's you're statement to the judge (which court was that, again?): "Well, your Honour, you know, his shoulders were hunched and I was on my own, his buddies were beside him, looking at me and, while I'll concede that he was smiling well, you know, it was one of those spooky smiles that just sends shivers down your spine.  Sorry, I goofed."  And you'll stand there, high and mighty, certain in your conviction that there was sufficient threat to warrant your violent reaction while every one of his friends in turn will stand up and say Joe never hurt a fly in his life and he was just playing with his water-pistol.

You see?  You think you have the right to defend yourself BUT OTHERS DO NOT CONCEDE YOU THAT RIGHT.  You have no rights other that what your peers collectively permit you.

Now, do you want to scale the argument back up to nukes, or shall I?  Ok, it was a rhetorical question, I'll do it.  Here's your statement to the judge (hate to be repetitive, but which court was it?):

"Well your Honour, you know, he was standing there, with his hand over the BigRedButton and a bottle of whiskey in his hand when he looked up at me and let me tell you, he wasn't smiling at all.  Sure, I didn't realise the fissile material was in his bunker and he just wanted to test the electronics before launching it into the sun; Yeah, and was cleaning the circuit boards with alcohol and hit a snag just before looking up at me.  But he should have realised that he was behaving as if he were about to detonate it.  Sorry, I goofed."

Is this discussion over now?

[fergalish]

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.

Is that what you think?  I happen to think otherwise.  If you so much as reach for a gun during a conflict between us, I will interpret that as a direct threat to me, and I will *immediately* try to shoot you first.  I agree with you - my interpretation is not "correct" nor is yours, but look what happens - one or both of us gets shot because we just didn't agree beforehand on what constitutes acceptable behaviour.  And before you go accusing me of being a narrow-minded totalitarian again, watch an old Clint Eastwood western - the crucial moment is *always* when the bad guy goes for his gun, NOT when he points it.

Actually, now that I think, where I come from guns are actually outlawed.  Private possession is not permitted, save justifiable licenced rare exceptions.  So, given that social norm, if you so much as enter the room, armed, even if holstered, during a conflict between us, I will interpret that as a direct threat and will *immediately* hit you over the head with my imported baseball bat.

[Rassah]

Now, let me repeat the question: what alternative do you offer to "MightMakesWinner" in the case where a conflict is heading to violence.

Would "protecting your business by not killing your customers, not disrupting business in your area, and preserving your own reputation" play into this at all? Since customers have the might to give you their money or not I mean. I'm once again reminded by the India/Pakistan incident a few years ago, where both countries were, once again, on the brink of war, and Indian businesses convinced (forced) the government to back down because India was a huge international business hub, and couldn't just take a break to go to war.
Or am I completely off topic here?