Do You Support the Initiation of Force?

ironhead said:
So you are saying that you refuse to answer the question? That's a cute evasion, but nevertheless an evasion of the question.
Click to expand...
So your saying that you won't or are unable to clarify your initial comment.
While it's a normal liberal evasive tactic, it none the less shows a limited cognitive process. :)
 
Another ad hominem. You said that you understood the words of my question. It is a rather simple question. You said you deny the immorality of the initiation of the use of violence, but then reversed when I provided you with a simple application of the principle. How can I clarify that which you said you understood?
 
ironhead said:
Another ad hominem. You said that you understood the words of my question. It is a rather simple question. You said you deny the immorality of the initiation of the use of violence, but then reversed when I provided you with a simple application of the principle. How can I clarify that which you said you understood?
Click to expand...

There was no need for you to announce your ad hominem, by putting the label at the beginning of your post.

Yes I do understand.
Simple is really good description of it.
I didn't reverse my stand.
If you can't clarify it, then it has to mean that you didn't understand it yourself.
 
ironhead said:
If it helps, I assert it is a universal moral principle to oppose the initiation of violence against others. I oppose the initiation of violence through force or fraud. If something is not applied universally, it is not a moral principle; it would simply be a preference ala orange vs. yellow.
Click to expand...

kind of a crock of shit, don't you think? for instance, if you turn the corner and you see two men who are already inflicting violence on someone else, would it then be immoral for you to initiate force against them to help the lone individual?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
kind of a crock of shit, don't you think? for instance, if you turn the corner and you see two men who are already inflicting violence on someone else, would it then be immoral for you to initiate force against them to help the lone individual?
Click to expand...
++

In this situation, wouldn't the two men have initiated teh violence?

And doesn't this also show a difficulty in such a general question? How do we determine the point of initiation? If a man beats his wife for years, then one night she shoots him before he raises a hand to her. In the isolated incident, she initiated the violence. But overall, he certainly initiated it.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
There was no need for you to announce your ad hominem, by putting the label at the beginning of your post.

Yes I do understand.
Simple is really good description of it.
I didn't reverse my stand.
If you can't clarify it, then it has to mean that you didn't understand it yourself.
Click to expand...

No, you used the ad hominem argument, not me. Just saying it is mine does not make it so. It's quite simple. You said that you deny the immorality of the initiation of force against another person. Then, when I provided you with an application of the principle, you reversed and said that it was immoral. Then, when I pointed it out, you suggested I had cognitive deficits (ad hominem).

I can attempt to clarify anything you wish, what part do you want clarified?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
kind of a crock of shit, don't you think? for instance, if you turn the corner and you see two men who are already inflicting violence on someone else, would it then be immoral for you to initiate force against them to help the lone individual?
Click to expand...

In this case, you did not initiate violence. People who are already beating somebody have scooped you on the initiation of violence.
 
C'Thulhu said:
Morally speaking, it would depend on context.
Click to expand...

Let's say I found out my next door neighbor had molested one of my children.... I won't say what I would do, but the violence was initiated by the person who made a victim of a child.

In almost every case the context would be somebody first making a victim of another. I can't think of a context where I would "initiate" otherwise.
 
Yurt said:
thread fail

if you would stop being such a mamby pamby little boy and clarify your question, it might be a decent thread. it is just far to open ended.
Click to expand...

I am absolutely FLOORED!

Floored I tell you, that the guy who expects answers to all his questions doesn't think USF should answer the question before him.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
I am absolutely FLOORED!

Floored I tell you, that the guy who expects answers to all his questions doesn't think USF should answer the question before him.
Click to expand...

my good lord you are a whiny bitch. what part of "too open ended" do you not understand? you're being a bitter asshole again zappa. calm down and think about it. what is wrong with narrowing the question down? oh wait....nothing at all...you just had to rant and whine about something.

great contribution asshole.
 
Yurt said:
exactly...that is why the question is too open ended.
Click to expand...

No, that completely misunderstands what morality is. If morality is not universally applicable, then it simply subjective preferences. This would be like saying that rape is wrong because you prefer it over not raping; that yellow is better than purple. Objective morality is universally applicable and demonstrable.
 
ironhead said:
No, that completely misunderstands what morality is. If morality is not universally applicable, then it simply subjective preferences. This would be like saying that rape is wrong because you prefer it over not raping; that yellow is better than purple. Objective morality is universally applicable and demonstrable.
Click to expand...

what? so you're saying that there is zero case for initiating violence? you're confused about the concept of morality. it does not need to be universally applied.

also your rape comparison is horrible. there are times when it is moral to initiate violence against one how has not initiated force against you. your question is a blanket question, ignoring real situations. i think you should study up on morality a bit before you make your next post.
 
Morals are not universally applied, if they were there would be no more than one set, however we find many subjective sets of moral values just in the example of religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top