Legitimate Threats, Legitimate Demands

[Hawker]

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?

Of course he does.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demand

a : an act of demanding or asking especially with authority <a demand for obedience> b : something claimed as due <a list of demands>

He has the right to go for a walk.  You don't have authority to tell him to walk and you have no valid claim on his walking rights.  So you can't demand it.

[jgraham]

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?

Of course he does.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demand

a : an act of demanding or asking especially with authority <a demand for obedience> b : something claimed as due <a list of demands>

He has the right to go for a walk.  You don't have authority to tell him to walk and you have no valid claim on his walking rights.  So you can't demand it.

Hmm....did we move to the term "demand" now?  I tend to avoid checking this board on weekends.

  Well if by "demand" we mean a specific sense of the word where authority to ask and the persons duty to perform is already implied.  Then of course bitcoin2cash is correct but that's trivial and means that his claim in the "mile -> inch" department isn't as strong as he would think (maybe that's what you are getting at and you are getting entertained by the fact that bitcoin2cash is missing it? ).

  However if we go back to using "threat" which does not imply authority to ask or the duty to perform.   Then we need to fall on to definitions of some of the other terms (which I brought up earlier ).   For example, if "legitimate" means or contains the term "legal" (in some reasonable jurisdiction).  Then there appears to be a whole class of "rights to do" for which one has no "right to threaten".   That would be set where the "right to think" is legally in conflict with the "right to express".  i.e. It could be argued that bitcoin2cash has the "right" to contemplate my death - even plan it mentally in detail -  however there are a lot of contexts where s/he is absolutely restricted from expressing that because it would be difficult to distinguish.  Can you imagine telling a shopkeeper?  "If you don't give me a refund I'll start thinking about ways to kill you!"

So outside of the case which you have identified I think we can call bitcoin2cash's point disproved.

I hope that I have contributed - in an albeit humble way - to elevating the intellectual content of this board.  Which you have, quite rightly noticed is lacking. 

[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?

Of course he does.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demand

a : an act of demanding or asking especially with authority <a demand for obedience> b : something claimed as due <a list of demands>

He has the right to go for a walk.  You don't have authority to tell him to walk and you have no valid claim on his walking rights.  So you can't demand it.

It says "especially with authority". It doesn't say "only with authority".

[Hawker]

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?

Of course he does.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demand

a : an act of demanding or asking especially with authority <a demand for obedience> b : something claimed as due <a list of demands>

He has the right to go for a walk.  You don't have authority to tell him to walk and you have no valid claim on his walking rights.  So you can't demand it.

It says "especially with authority". It doesn't say "only with authority".

So by demand you mean ask without authority or simply ask.  Why not say ask then?

[NghtRppr]

So by demand you mean ask without authority or simply ask.  Why not say ask then?

I don't know if English is your first language but a "demand" implies something slightly different than a "request". When a bunch of workers go on strike, they make "demands" not "requests". Simply making a request implies timidness and that being told "no" is slightly more satisfactory than would be the case if an outright demand were made. However, I would accept the substitution of "demand" as a "forceful and insistent request" if that will help you understand my point better.

[Hawker]

So by demand you mean ask without authority or simply ask.  Why not say ask then?

I don't know if English is your first language but a "demand" implies something slightly different than a "request". When a bunch of workers go on strike, they make "demands" not "requests". Simply making a request implies timidness and that being told "no" is slightly more satisfactory than would be the case if an outright demand were made. However, I would accept the substitution of "demand" as a "forceful and insistent request" if that will help you understand my point better.

So you would forcefully and insistently request that someone goes for a walk.  Fine. 

[AyeYo]

So by demand you mean ask without authority or simply ask.  Why not say ask then?

I don't know if English is your first language but a "demand" implies something slightly different than a "request". When a bunch of workers go on strike, they make "demands" not "requests". Simply making a request implies timidness and that being told "no" is slightly more satisfactory than would be the case if an outright demand were made. However, I would accept the substitution of "demand" as a "forceful and insistent request" if that will help you understand my point better.

That still leaves you using that word you find so magical: force.  That brings us right back to this...

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?

Of course he does.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demand

a : an act of demanding or asking especially with authority <a demand for obedience> b : something claimed as due <a list of demands>

He has the right to go for a walk.  You don't have authority to tell him to walk and you have no valid claim on his walking rights.  So you can't demand it.

Hmm....did we move to the term "demand" now?  I tend to avoid checking this board on weekends.

  Well if by "demand" we mean a specific sense of the word where authority to ask and the persons duty to perform is already implied.  Then of course bitcoin2cash is correct but that's trivial and means that his claim in the "mile -> inch" department isn't as strong as he would think (maybe that's what you are getting at and you are getting entertained by the fact that bitcoin2cash is missing it? ).

  However if we go back to using "threat" which does not imply authority to ask or the duty to perform.   Then we need to fall on to definitions of some of the other terms (which I brought up earlier ).   For example, if "legitimate" means or contains the term "legal" (in some reasonable jurisdiction).  Then there appears to be a whole class of "rights to do" for which one has no "right to threaten".   That would be set where the "right to think" is legally in conflict with the "right to express".  i.e. It could be argued that bitcoin2cash has the "right" to contemplate my death - even plan it mentally in detail -  however there are a lot of contexts where s/he is absolutely restricted from expressing that because it would be difficult to distinguish.  Can you imagine telling a shopkeeper?  "If you don't give me a refund I'll start thinking about ways to kill you!"

So outside of the case which you have identified I think we can call bitcoin2cash's point disproved.

I hope that I have contributed - in an albeit humble way - to elevating the intellectual content of this board.  Which you have, quite rightly noticed is lacking. 

[NghtRppr]

That still leaves you using that word you find so magical: force.

I said forceful, as in tone, not force. Fail.

[AyeYo]

Well let's see what forceful means...

force·ful
 adj \ˈfȯrs-fəl\


 : possessing or filled with force : effective <a forceful argument>

Hmm.... so what is "force" in this context?

3

: violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing

 

Ah, we have arrived at your other magical word: violence.



So you're saying that if I have a right to do something, you have a right to violently compel me to do it.


And what is your supporting argument for this?

[NghtRppr]

So you're saying that if I have a right to do something, you have a right to violently compel me to do it.

No, I'm not. You're an idiot. Consider yourself ignored.

[FirstAscent]

What demands can I make? Here are the conditions for legitimate demands.

• If you have the right to do X then it is legitimate for me to demand that you do X.
• If you don't have the right to do X then it is illegitimate for me to demand that you do X.

Let's take a moment and substitute some real world terms into your assertion. For example:

You have the right to pay a portion of your income to the government. Therefore, it is legitimate for the government to demand that you pay a portion of your income to the government.

I personally wouldn't make the original assertion, but you have, therefore we can conclude that you would deem it fair that the government demands that you pay taxes.

Further on, you state:

However, I would accept the substitution of "demand" as a "forceful and insistent request" if that will help you understand my point better.

By substituting the term demand with your clarified meaning of it, we can conclude that you believe the following to be acceptable, fair and reasonable:

You have the right to pay a portion of your income to the government. Therefore, it is legitimate for the government to make a "forceful and insistent request" that you pay a portion of your income to the government.

Now that we have a fair synopsis of the point that you are trying to make in this thread (admittedly, we were all at a bit of a loss as to what you meant), we can see how absurd and inconsistently you choose to apply your philosophy to life.

[jgraham]

What demands can I make? Here are the conditions for legitimate demands.

• If you have the right to do X then it is legitimate for me to demand that you do X.
• If you don't have the right to do X then it is illegitimate for me to demand that you do X.

Let's take a moment and substitute some real world terms into your assertion. For example:

You have the right to pay a portion of your income to the government. Therefore, it is legitimate for the government to demand that you pay a portion of your income to the government.

I personally wouldn't make the original assertion, but you have, therefore we can conclude that you would deem it fair that the government demands that you pay taxes.

Further on, you state:

However, I would accept the substitution of "demand" as a "forceful and insistent request" if that will help you understand my point better.

By substituting the term demand with your clarified meaning of it, we can conclude that you believe the following to be acceptable, fair and reasonable:

You have the right to pay a portion of your income to the government. Therefore, it is legitimate for the government to make a "forceful and insistent request" that you pay a portion of your income to the government.

Now that we have a fair synopsis of the point that you are trying to make in this thread (admittedly, we were all at a bit of a loss as to what you meant), we can see how absurd and inconsistently you choose to apply your philosophy to life.

Even my exceptionally limited understanding of bitcoin2cash's tiny, bigoted and oft times violent mind I'd say that what he probably meant was something along the lines of "If person X has the right to do Y therefore person X has the right to threaten to do Y".   I think he gave some examples about leaving the room and such.

However I would maintain that in my above form Bitcoin2cash's statement, unless s/he provides further definition as to what "has the right to threaten" means is already disproved.  As there are a number of things where the thought of which is acceptable but the expression of which is not.  i.e. It is legal (and to some extent acceptable) for Bitcoin2cash to contemplate the ways he could murder a shopkeeper for not giving a refund.  However it is generally not acceptable for him to threaten that.  i.e. "If you don't give me a refund I will start thinking about ways to murder you" is probably indistinguishable (by people and the courts) as a death threat.

I agree though we all shrug our shoulders as to why bitcoin2cash thinks his statement is so profound.  Which probably inflates his already too large ego on this subject.

[NghtRppr]

You have the right to pay a portion of your income to the government. Therefore, it is legitimate for the government to make a "forceful and insistent request" that you pay a portion of your income to the government.

You don't understand. They can send a strongly worded letter. That's all.

"Pay us now. All of it. Without fail."

Forceful doesn't mean they can say "We'll send thugs in uniforms to kidnap you if you don't comply." You are focusing on the legitimacy of demands but failing to keep in mind the legitimacy of threats. Other people can't legitimately initiate violence against me therefore they can't legitimately threaten to initiate violence against me.

[Hawker]

You have the right to pay a portion of your income to the government. Therefore, it is legitimate for the government to make a "forceful and insistent request" that you pay a portion of your income to the government.

You don't understand. They can send a strongly worded letter. That's all.

"Pay us now. All of it. Without fail."

Forceful doesn't mean they can say "We'll send thugs in uniforms to kidnap you if you don't comply." You are focusing on the legitimacy of demands but failing to keep in mind the legitimacy of threats. Other people can't legitimately initiate violence against me therefore they can't legitimately threaten to initiate violence against me.

You see, the difference is that Government really can make a demand for taxes and can legitimately imprison you if you refuse to pay.  Not a forceful request - a demand.  It comes with a letter saying "We'll send thugs in uniforms to kidnap you if you don't comply."

That's why your original post is wrong headed.  You used the word "demand" when you meant "forceful request." 

[NghtRppr]

You used the word "demand" when you meant "forceful request."

de·mand [dih-mand, -mahnd]
verb (used with object)

2. to ask for peremptorily or urgently: He demanded sanctuary. She demanded that we let her in.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/demand

That's how I'm using "demand". If you don't like it then you'll just have to get over it.

[Hawker]

"You have the right to kill yourself. Therefore, it is legitimate for me to demand that you kill yourself."

Your "demand" is simply "asking".  The taxman's demand is that and a lot more.  I wonder why you chose the word when the meaning you meant is so removed from its common usage.

[NghtRppr]

I wonder why you chose the word when the meaning you meant is so removed from its common usage.

It's the second definition in the dictionary. It's not removed from common usage at all. I've already used an extremely common example, workers going on strike until their demands are met. I really can't see the point of arguing about this. It's puerile.

[Hawker]

I wonder why you chose the word when the meaning you meant is so removed from its common usage.

It's the second definition in the dictionary. It's not removed from common usage at all. I've already used an extremely common example, workers going on strike until their demands are met. I really can't see the point of arguing about this. It's puerile.

I'll stop first then - we seem to have reached agreement

[NghtRppr]

I wonder why you chose the word when the meaning you meant is so removed from its common usage.

It's the second definition in the dictionary. It's not removed from common usage at all. I've already used an extremely common example, workers going on strike until their demands are met. I really can't see the point of arguing about this. It's puerile.

I'll stop first then - we seem to have reached agreement

Yes, we agree that your arguments over definitions are puerile. You know what I mean. I've made it abundantly clear.

[jgraham]

I wonder why you chose the word when the meaning you meant is so removed from its common usage.

It's the second definition in the dictionary. It's not removed from common usage at all. I've already used an extremely common example, workers going on strike until their demands are met. I really can't see the point of arguing about this. It's puerile.

I already commented on that...well that you were being puerile anyway.

I completely don't get why you and everyone wants to play dictionary word games.

I realize that you call yourself a philosopher and by virtue of that you should know this but often Logicians and Philosophers need to talk about something in a very restricted way.  Often that's the only way they can "get work done".  Since it's very difficult to talk about everything a word connotes*  So you construct a definition.

For example the first line in Aristotle's De Interpretatione (in Latin considering how people here like to fling it around like so much monkey poop) is as follows: First we must define the terms 'noun' and 'verb', then the terms 'denial' and 'affirmation', then 'proposition' and 'sentence.'  He goes on to define these terms. 

I'd submit that it doesn't matter how one defines their term as long as they disclose what the definition is.  Bitcoin2cash can define his terms any way s/he wants.  S/he can say that "demand" means "violently" or "not violent" or "fruit bat".   Now sure that gives him/her the opportunity to use a uncommon definition but it doesn't really matter.  Because that will in turn restrict what conclusions s/he draws.

i.e. I want to argue that pool hopping is unethical.   So I'll define the term "pool" to mean "a place where it is unethical to hop"**.  Now this, of course makes it easy to produce a syllogism which is valid but it hugely restricts the applicability of the argument.  In this case the only pools which are unethical to hop are the ones for which it is unethical to hop.  Which is what we call "begging the question" - the arguer has assumed her conclusion.

The only place where using the dictionary makes any sense is to show that a person is using a term in an uncommon sense in which case the arguer should provide a definition.  Attempting to use the dictionary to pretend that their definition isn't valid*** is silly.  Lots of words can refer to concepts not found in the dictionary.  Not only that but the arguer can just create a new word as a referent to his/her idea.

I feel like I should start a thread called: "How to argue" because while people like bitcoin2cash, JoelKatz, FredreicBAsshat,BCEmporium are all borderline crazy.   Their crazy might be shut down more quickly if the root of their argument could be identified and killed.  Instead of spending a lot of time on peripheral matters.

Apologies if that was preachy.

*_{A good example of this is my conversation with JoelKatz about pollution.  Joel was barely able to say anything about what was or was not pollution which might be due to his belief that he had no useful definition of his term 'pollution' or 'optimum'.  It's of course possible that Joel was being strategic i.e. he believed that by exposing his definition that would allow me to attack his argument (which would be correct).}
**_{Interestingly enough I suspect that if JoelKatz would ever decide to actually define his terms about this.  His argument would probably break down similarly.}
***_{I think bitcoin2cash did this exact thing in one of our first discussions.}