Legitimate Threats, Legitimate Demands

[Hawker]

In this country, blackmail is legitimate if the subject matter is true.

You might want to read 18 U.S.C. § 873.

Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Legitimate doesn't mean its OK.

Legitimate means I can't use violence to stop you. It's legitimate to call your grandmother a cunt but it's definitely not something you should do.

Now you are drifting back into crazy talk.  What's this weird obsession with threats and violence?  The is a website - consider going to a bar and jumping the line at a pool table if you want violence.  While posting here, consider making a logical point.

[NghtRppr]

What's this weird obsession with threats and violence?

Cut the bullshit. This is the politics and society section. One of the things we talk about is laws i.e. what should be legal. If something is illegal then you will be stopped, with violence if necessary. I'm sorry if you don't understand that but quit trying to attack me personally and stick to the arguments.

[AyeYo]

When do you tell us wtf your point is?

How does this ridiculous and irrelevant demand that people kill themselves relate to real-world issues?

[jgraham]

Its obvious you have something troubling you and I wonder if you considered turning the computer off for a bit and finding someone who you can talk to and get things in perspective.

You're either trolling or you take posts made on a discussion forum way too seriously. Either way, stop.

So your OP was not serious?

Honestly, I'm not trolling.  Your OP is very odd.  Whatever vision you want to promote, talk about demanding people kill themselves and insisting its your right and talk of threats only makes you look strange and undermines your argument.

/peace out

Well then you really don't understand how philosophers work. We...

How do you define 'legitimate'? How do you define 'demand'?

I would assume like most other people. Are you unfamiliar with those words?

Everyone else seems to understand me. I'll do that when a non-troll makes the same request.

The digression into "how Philosophers work" is puerile enough but considering that philosophers tend to make a point of defining terms, often exceptionally precise ones.  There is some pretty significant irony here.

* If I have the right to do X then it is legitimate for me to threaten to do X.

Is this whole statement an assertion or are you claiming that "legitimate to threaten" follows from "right to do"?

If the later then it's may not be true but it will depend exactly what "legitimate", "right" and "threaten" means.  For example you might have the right to believe that some race should be destroyed but, at least where I live you can not legally verbalize it.  So it's at least conceivable that to threatening to become this kind of person is, at least on paper illegal.

If the former then I feel like I've walked in on a circle-jerk.

[Denicen]

Let us say that you have more food than you can eat, and your surplus food will rot if it is not given away. Is it legitimate for you to deny the starving man food in that situation?

I'm still curious about this.

[Hawker]

Let us say that you have more food than you can eat, and your surplus food will rot if it is not given away. Is it legitimate for you to deny the starving man food in that situation?

I'm still curious about this.

Legitimate but not decent.  Its like when you see someone drowning; you are under no legal obligation to help but if you can safely rescue the person, its a good thing to do.

[Hawker]

What's this weird obsession with threats and violence?

Cut the bullshit. This is the politics and society section. One of the things we talk about is laws i.e. what should be legal. If something is illegal then you will be stopped, with violence if necessary. I'm sorry if you don't understand that but quit trying to attack me personally and stick to the arguments.

Not attacking you.  Just stay on the same planet as the rest of us.  All this talk about demand, threats, violence and wanting people to die is bizarre.  One day you are all libertarian - next day you are threatening violence against people who break your countries laws. 

Anyway, since you say this is a philosophical discussion, can you give us a clue what philosophical point you wanted to make? 

[NghtRppr]

One day you are all libertarian - next day you are threatening violence against people who break your countries laws.

I haven't threatened anyone. You're either trolling or you're stupid. For your sake, I hope you're trolling.

Anyway, since you say this is a philosophical discussion, can you give us a clue what philosophical point you wanted to make?

I guess you really are stupid. I've said it several times. My point is, if I can legitimately do X then I can legitimately threaten to do X. Do you need it translated into another language? Do you want some pictures to go with it? What will help penetrate that thick skull of yours?

[Hawker]

One day you are all libertarian - next day you are threatening violence against people who break your countries laws.

I haven't threatened anyone. You're either trolling or you're stupid. For your sake, I hope you're trolling.

Anyway, since you say this is a philosophical discussion, can you give us a clue what philosophical point you wanted to make?

I guess you really are stupid. I've said it several times. My point is, if I can legitimately do X then I can legitimately threaten to do X. Do you need it translated into another language? Do you want some pictures to go with it? What will help penetrate that thick skull of yours?

You are an angry little fellow aren't you.  If your entire point and the reason you are on about violence, threats, demanding people die, etc is " My point is, if I can legitimately do X then I can legitimately threaten to do X" then I would like to make a few points of my own.

2 + 2 = 4.  Bears do shit in the woods.  The Pope is, in fact, a Catholic. 

If you have any other blindingly obvious truths you want to share with us, please let us know.

[NghtRppr]

You are an angry little fellow aren't you.

I'm not angry at all. Why do you think that? Just because I insult you after being insulted by you? You seem to have no problem insulting me so why can't I insult you back? That's a rhetorical question by the way. Don't bother answering it because I don't care.

Anyways, I'm glad you agree with me, whether or not you consider it obvious doesn't interest me. You are dismissed now.

[Hawker]

You are an angry little fellow aren't you.

I'm not angry at all. Why do you think that? Just because I insult you after being insulted by you? You seem to have no problem insulting me so why can't I insult you back? That's a rhetorical question by the way. Don't bother answering it because I don't care.

Anyways, I'm glad you agree with me, whether or not you consider it obvious doesn't interest me. You are dismissed now.

That isn't how the Internet works.  Looking forward to seeing an intelligent post from you with something a little less obvious.

[deuxmill]

Let us say that you have more food than you can eat, and your surplus food will rot if it is not given away. Is it legitimate for you to deny the starving man food in that situation?

I'm still curious about this.

Yes. It should be legal. Although I believe you should be murdered and the food taken by the starving even if it's illegal. Then he should face the consequences of doing something illegal.

[NghtRppr]

Looking forward to seeing an intelligent post from you with something a little less obvious.

Sour grapes.

"I'm right but it was obvious so who cares. "

I do agree that it's obvious, to me at least. However, the fact that I have to keep arguing this point when it comes to minimum wage, taxes, etc, seems to suggest it isn't obvious to everyone. Just get over it and move along if you already knew this.

[Hawker]

Looking forward to seeing an intelligent post from you with something a little less obvious.

Sour grapes.

"I'm right but it was obvious so who cares. "

I do agree that it's obvious, to me at least. However, the fact that I have to keep arguing this point when it comes to minimum wage, taxes, etc, seems to suggest it isn't obvious to everyone. Just get over it and move along if you already knew this.

Again, someone who disagrees with you will disagree about whether its right to have a minimum wage or low taxes or whatever.  No-one will concede in a debate that your position is legitimate, therefore they have to agree with you.  For example, you can legitimately argue that the minimum wage is a restriction of your freedom to do what you want with your own money on your own property.  Not everyone will agree with you and those who disagree may also have legitimate positions.

[AyeYo]

Looking forward to seeing an intelligent post from you with something a little less obvious.

Sour grapes.

"I'm right but it was obvious so who cares. "

I do agree that it's obvious, to me at least. However, the fact that I have to keep arguing this point when it comes to minimum wage, taxes, etc, seems to suggest it isn't obvious to everyone. Just get over it and move along if you already knew this.

This...

When do you tell us wtf your point is?

How does this ridiculous and irrelevant demand that people kill themselves relate to real-world issues?

If you can do X, then I can demand that you do X... doesn't mean a goddamn thing.  It's logically correct, yes, but that means nothing.

If the sky is green, then it's not blue.  That's logically correct too, but it's irrelevant in the real world.




As Hawker just explained, the fact that your point is logical within the bounds of your own reasoning doesn't mean that it automatically is THE universal truth and everyone must accept it.

As I said already, in the real world, what is prudent is more important that what is legitimate.  That is where the argument matters, not this captain obvious bullshit.  If you want to argue "minimum wage, taxes, etc." then make threads for each of those subjects, because they deserve their own thread.  Your black/white generalization based on your own reasoning does not magically make you win all arguments on all issues.

[NghtRppr]

As I said already, in the real world, what is prudent is more important that what is legitimate.

In your opinion. I happen to be of the opinion that consistently applying principles actually matters most of all.

[AyeYo]

As I said already, in the real world, what is prudent is more important that what is legitimate.

In your opinion. I happen to be of the opinion that consistently applying principles actually matters most of all.

I just explained why your "principle" doesn't mean a damn thing.  


If a feather weighed 1,000lbs., then it would be heavier than a cubic inch of lead.

If gravity didn't exist, then I would be able to float.

If my Civic ran 11's, then it'd be faster than a Viper.



All logically correctly, but totally irrelevant in the real world.



Additionally, you have done nothing to prove the idea that simply because I have a right to do something, you have a right to demand that I do it.  You have not proved your statements of what is "legitimate".

Furthermore, you have not even bothered to discuss what constitutes a "right".


This is why I keep saying you MAKE A POINT, so that we can discuss your SPECIFIC point.  This generalization you keep making is meaningless.

[FredericBastiat]

Demands and threats seem like close cousins, but maybe an example might make sense of things.

Example 1:
I write on a piece of paper stating that I demand that you kill yourself and then mail it to you. I live on the other side of the planet. This demand would appear to be legitimate, but only so because the immediacy of the threat, if there is any, is not particularly apparent.

Example 2:
I stand inches away from your face and demand that you kill yourself. Hmm... well that appears to be a different animal altogether. The circumstances are not the same. The threat is very apparent and could be perceived (misinterpreted violent intentions??) to be very real if not imminent (your impending doom).

I would like to assume you have an inherent right to defend yourself against such threats of violence, or appearances thereto if necessary. What's the goal? What's your end-game? You can use different words in numerous contexts and mean many different things.

In the end, applying violence requires much effort, but threatening violence does not, and achieves much in the way of achieving some means to an end. That end typically is to extricate your property from you and transfer it to the "manipulator" -via perceived threats of violence and coercion.

If the outcome achieves some deviant end, then it matters little the use of the words themselves. Perhaps demand should be substituted for profusely and energetically, but politely, ask. That way we don't confuse acts of potential violence for hyperactive requests.

[NghtRppr]

you have done nothing to prove the idea that simply because I have a right to do something, you have a right to demand that I do it

So you disagree with that?

[AyeYo]

you have done nothing to prove the idea that simply because I have a right to do something, you have a right to demand that I do it

So you disagree with that?

You have not presented an argument for it.