You're not on vacation until you remove yourself as a moderator, and you're still listed as one.
cheapsuprise wrote:
I donno where you got that idea.
From the fact that you're still listed as a moderator. If you no longer wish to be asked to do moderator-things, or no longer wish to do moderator-things, you should remove yourself as a moderator. Capice?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Hint: this is as much a lesson for you as it is for him. Wonderful how I can deftly combine the two.
cheapsuprise wrote:
Are you sure?
Quite certain.
cheapsuprise wrote:
I'm responsible for
my own actions
. I am not OBLIGATED to take action, nor am I responsible for
your
actions.
You are if you wish to have your desires fulfilled. Do you still so wish to have this place nice and full of intellectual discourse? If so, then do your job. It's quite simple, really. If not, remove yourself as a moderator.
cheapsuprise wrote:
My participation is VULANTARY. At a later date I hope to return to active duty.
For the time being,
I have withdrawn my consent
so to speak.
Not when you're still listed as a moderator.
Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
As frustrating dealing with sjc is, there is no rule against beeing an ignorant asshole on these boards.In fact, as far as I can tell, there hardly is any rule at all, so everything is left to the moderators' judgement, so I hardly see how you can have any reason to tell them how to do their job.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
I can when I'm reminding them of their wishes. And since cheap has a desire to see civil, intellectual discourse, I'm merely reminding him of his wish and that he has the power to make his wish come to fruition.
cheapsuprise wrote:
I have already acted to the extent of the powers GRANTED to me.
Have you?
cheapsuprise wrote:
This seams to be something people have difficulty figuring out. I'm not an all powerful dictator, nor do I have time or justification to delete every post SJC makes because YOU want me to,
NOR would you
enjoy it
if I was the kind of moderator who considered that kind of moderation to be a common acceptable practice.
That's why I suggested it. There's a lesson in what I suggested, too. It all combines to demonstrate what happens when there is a lack of property rights/clearly spelled out guidelines, or the guidelines are a bit "fuzzy". What I did was no different from attempting to bribe a government official, and I could make such an offer because of the nature of the rules. Just like is done around the world in the various government offices. All for the benefit of showing sjc how things work in reality because of bribable officials and those who demand tribute.
You probably had no idea of what I was trying to do, and while I will not apologize for doing so, I hope that you do not feel somehow used.
cheapsuprise wrote:
Try to imagine
what it would be like if I took a decided dislike of YOUR posts as well.
Try to imagine my extreme lack of caring if you did. Remember: I have no fear of moderators or being banned. None. It causes me no harm whatsoever. And therein lies the key, doesn't it?
cheapsuprise Master of Logic
Joined: Apr 26, 2004
Posts: 5325
Location: Next door.
Posted:
Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:17 pm
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
cheapsuprise wrote:
I donno where you got that idea.
From the fact that you're still listed as a moderator. If you no longer wish to be asked to do moderator-things, or no longer wish to do moderator-things, you should remove yourself as a moderator. Capice?
Nope.
This is something from your
imagination
, which dose not reflect the policy of the administrators, or how the administrators conduct there business.
Quote:
You are if you wish to have your desires fulfilled. Do you still so wish to have this place nice and full of intellectual discourse?
I sure do.
Quote:
If so, then do your job. It's quite simple, really. If not, remove yourself as a moderator.
I have done my job. I have fulfilled the mandate given to me according to the conditions allowed. I don't care what
you
think I should do. If you have a REAL problem with that, then PM another moderator or an administrator, and ask that I be removed.
Quote:
cheapsuprise wrote:
My participation is VULANTARY. At a later date I hope to return to active duty.
For the time being,
I have withdrawn my consent
so to speak.
Not when you're still listed as a moderator.
Sort of like how a DOCOTOR has to relinquish the "Dr." in his name when he goes on vacation right?
Just give that *symbolic* line of thought up, as it has no future.
A moderator is a moderator even when they are not *MODERATEING*.
This is because administrators do not have the time, or the desire to change all the permissions just so that a name can disappear from a list.
If you think that means something important, then I suggest you think of something else, as it is MOOT.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
cheapsuprise wrote:
I have already acted to the extent of the powers GRANTED to me.
Have you?
Yes.
Quote:
That's why I suggested it. There's a lesson in what I suggested, too. It all combines to demonstrate what happens when there is a lack of property rights/clearly spelled out guidelines, or the guidelines are a bit "fuzzy". What I did was no different from attempting to bribe a government official, and I could make such an offer because of the nature of the rules. Just like is done around the world in the various government offices. All for the benefit of showing sjc how things work in reality because of bribable officials and those who demand tribute.
Oh, is
THAT
what you were doing?
Quote:
You probably had no idea of what I was trying to do, and while I will not apologize for doing so, I hope that you do not feel somehow used.
No problem.
Quote:
cheapsuprise wrote:
Try to imagine
what it would be like if I took a decided dislike of YOUR posts as well.
Try to imagine my extreme lack of caring if you did. Remember: I have no fear of moderators or being banned. None. It causes me no harm whatsoever. And therein lies the key, doesn't it?
Key to what? You getting banned? Eventually, I suppose.
So what?
Your feelings or lack there of are irrelevant. If some one decides to fire
your
ass to Banistan, then no doubt it will be uncaring all around.
Stuz719 Grand Poster
Joined: Apr 22, 2005
Posts: 1036
Posted:
Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:19 pm
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
cheapsuprise wrote:
I'm responsible for
my own actions
. I am not OBLIGATED to take action, nor am I responsible for
your
actions.
You are if you wish to have your desires fulfilled. Do you still so wish to have this place nice and full of intellectual discourse? If so, then do your job. It's quite simple, really. If not, remove yourself as a moderator.
Assuming that cheapsurprise's desire is to have this place full of intellectual discourse. The fact that he is a moderator does not imply this in any way, shape or form - the only way to know for sure would be to be omniscient.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
All for the benefit of showing sjc how things work in reality because of
bribable officials
and
those who demand tribute
.
(Emphasis added)
I take it you are absolutely honest, absolutely incorruptible and work for free, then.
Ivan_Ivanov Grand Poster
Joined: Jun 16, 2004
Posts: 1250
Location: Poland
Posted:
Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:11 pm
Stuz719 wrote:
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
All for the benefit of showing sjc how things work in reality because of
bribable officials
and
those who demand tribute
.
(Emphasis added)
I take it you are absolutely honest, absolutely incorruptible and work for free, then.
He doesn't have to.
His salary is a result of a contract agreed upon by all sides involved, whereas government officials force you to pay them.
He doesn't have to be absolutely honest, and neither do the officieas. They don't have to be honest as long as they don't violate the contract/laws, and the same applies for beeing incorruptible.
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:38 pm
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Then you have given up rationality.
Saitou wrote:
Not at all. Supporting something that is less moral than an alternative is not by definition irrational. I don't think morality trumps all.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You support something that is not moral in spite of that fact. That means that you have given up rationality.
You're basically repeating yourself here. You need to use new arguments if you'd like to me to reach a different conclusion than I have.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You've decided that you will ignore the consequences of your beliefs.
Saitou wrote:
What are the consequences of my beliefs that I ignore?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
That what you propose is nothing more than thuggery with legal backing.
You're talking about taxation and the like. I knew that was a consequence and seen it in practice my entire life. A lot of it is bullshit but I don't want to eliminate it I want to reduce it significantly. People like you and I could work together to reduce it but at some point we'd part ways and I'll be one of the obstructionists as you worked to continue the reduction. Unless during the progress I change my mind and adopt the same vision as you.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
That you know that taxation involves the initiation of force against individuals, yet somehow that is not immoral.
I support the use of force in order to get compliance with laws I support. If I didn't those laws could simply be ignored. Usually the actual use of the force isn't necessary as people comply before it comes to that.
Saitou wrote:
You appear to be saying without morality there is only faith. I don't agree.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
I'm saying that you're ignoring the facts and going with what you want to believe. That is faith.
The facts is that I don't think everything that is done must be morally the best in order to be the best coarse of action. There is still room for logic and reason.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Then why do you agree that theft is acceptable? Why do you agree that initiating force is acceptable?
Saitou wrote:
Sometimes it could be although it is always wrong or immoral on a level.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Then it cannot be acceptable.
Perhaps to you but not to me.
You say things like theft is theft. That kind of thinking is too limited. Not everything that isn't moral is the same in severity. And along that scale you can have necessary inconveniences, minor wrongs, terrible wrongs, and acts of outright evil (or use whatever you prefer to represent the worst of the worst).
It may be proper to take things from people they don't voluntary wish to give up. It is more acceptable when it is as punishment but even when it isn't there may be a good reason to do so even if the reason doesn't pass your moral test.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
The government is the one with the legal monopoly on initiatory force, is it not?
Sure but it too can act on my behalf.
Saitou wrote:
Literally "sticking a gun in someone's face" should not be necessary.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
But somehow it's different when it's merely the threat of prison or that your property will be seized.
You do have the option of accepting the least terrible option put before you. In fact you choose it every time I bet. You pay the tax.
Saitou wrote:
If the burdens placed upon members of society are reasonable
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Are the burdens freely chosen? If not, you're advocating for an unchosen burden--an obligation for which there was no consent. How proper is that?
There are situations that we are born into and we don't get the opportunity to opt-out of. While they can't be morally justified that doesn't change the facts. You'll say they're wrong and should be invalid then. Regardless, they are valid, the law of the land, and stand until changed by our democratic process.
Saitou wrote:
(I consider the burden placed upon many to be less than reasonable as I think our government is too large and many people overtaxed)
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
All who are net tax-givers are overtaxed.
A reasonable and logical standard but not the one I would use. I'd look at the burden.
Saitou wrote:
Who gets to decide that restitution is appropriate and in what amount?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Arbiters. Judges. Lawyers.
Saitou wrote:
Who decides who they are?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Who decides who the carpet-cleaners are?
That doesn't answer my question. If I can choose my own arbiter, judge, and lawyer as I do my own carpet-cleaner then I choose people who will always let me have my way.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:24 am
cheapsuprise wrote:
I donno where you got that idea.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
From the fact that you're still listed as a moderator. If you no longer wish to be asked to do moderator-things, or no longer wish to do moderator-things, you should remove yourself as a moderator. Capice?
cheapsuprise wrote:
Nope.
Sorry, but that's what being a moderator means. It means you have to get involved and stamp out all inequalities.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You are if you wish to have your desires fulfilled. Do you still so wish to have this place nice and full of intellectual discourse?
cheapsuprise wrote:
I sure do.
And do you have the power to make them into a reality?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
If so, then do your job. It's quite simple, really. If not, remove yourself as a moderator.
cheapsuprise wrote:
I have done my job.
But you haven't thought about the children! You haven't micromanaged. How can you be an effective moderator if you don't? Remember: only those who make every decision for others truly have the best interests of others in mind.
cheapsuprise wrote:
My participation is VULANTARY. At a later date I hope to return to active duty.
For the time being,
I have withdrawn my consent
so to speak.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Not when you're still listed as a moderator.
cheapsuprise wrote:
Sort of like how a DOCOTOR has to relinquish the "Dr." in his name when he goes on vacation right?
If only that analogy was valid (since you don't appear to be on vacation).
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
That's why I suggested it. There's a lesson in what I suggested, too. It all combines to demonstrate what happens when there is a lack of property rights/clearly spelled out guidelines, or the guidelines are a bit "fuzzy". What I did was no different from attempting to bribe a government official, and I could make such an offer because of the nature of the rules. Just like is done around the world in the various government offices. All for the benefit of showing sjc how things work in reality because of bribable officials and those who demand tribute.
cheapsuprise wrote:
Oh, is
THAT
what you were doing?
Yes. Sometimes one needs to be obtuse in order to get the desired outcome.
You didn't think that I didn't have this all planned out, did you? Give me a little more credit than that.
cheapsuprise wrote:
Try to imagine
what it would be like if I took a decided dislike of YOUR posts as well.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Try to imagine my extreme lack of caring if you did. Remember: I have no fear of moderators or being banned. None. It causes me no harm whatsoever. And therein lies the key, doesn't it?
cheapsuprise wrote:
Key to what?
Power. If I believe that what you do causes me no harm, I have no reason to fear you or do as you say. I do not grant you the power. Others, who like to have their lives run for them--those who have given up on their own lives--would give you that power. Note: I'm not meaning you specifically there, but you in the general, universal, government-type sense.
As I said: I had this planned out.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:35 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Then you have given up rationality.
Saitou wrote:
Not at all. Supporting something that is less moral than an alternative is not by definition irrational. I don't think morality trumps all.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You support something that is not moral in spite of that fact. That means that you have given up rationality.
Saitou wrote:
You're basically repeating yourself here.
If I am--so what?
Saitou wrote:
You need to use new arguments if you'd like to me to reach a different conclusion than I have.
You assume that such is my goal. It is not. One cannot use reason against those who have abandoned it, for they will not listen.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You've decided that you will ignore the consequences of your beliefs.
Saitou wrote:
What are the consequences of my beliefs that I ignore?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
That what you propose is nothing more than thuggery with legal backing.
Saitou wrote:
You're talking about taxation and the like.
Of course.
Saitou wrote:
I knew that was a consequence and seen it in practice my entire life.
So why endorse something that you know is immoral?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
That you know that taxation involves the initiation of force against individuals, yet somehow that is not immoral.
Saitou wrote:
I support the use of force in order to get compliance with laws I support.
Even if the enforcement of those laws violate the rights of others, like with Jim Crow?
Saitou wrote:
If I didn't those laws could simply be ignored. Usually the actual use of the force isn't necessary as people comply before it comes to that.
And sometimes they don't comply, like Rosa Parks. What then? Arrest them for the crime of asserting their own individuality and their own rights?
Saitou wrote:
You appear to be saying without morality there is only faith. I don't agree.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
I'm saying that you're ignoring the facts and going with what you want to believe. That is faith.
Saitou wrote:
The facts is that I don't think everything that is done must be morally the best in order to be the best coarse of action. There is still room for logic and reason.
Morality is based on logic and reason.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Then why do you agree that theft is acceptable? Why do you agree that initiating force is acceptable?
Saitou wrote:
Sometimes it could be although it is always wrong or immoral on a level.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Then it cannot be acceptable.
Saitou wrote:
Perhaps to you but not to me.
The Way of the Thug.
Saitou wrote:
You say things like theft is theft.
It is.
Saitou wrote:
That kind of thinking is too limited.
No.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
The government is the one with the legal monopoly on initiatory force, is it not?
Saitou wrote:
Sure but it too can act on my behalf.
You cannot have it act on your behalf to initiate force against me, i.e. tax me. Since you do not have the right to initiate force against me, neither can the government. You are thus simply trying to get the government to do what you rightfully cannot.
Saitou wrote:
Literally "sticking a gun in someone's face" should not be necessary.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
But somehow it's different when it's merely the threat of prison or that your property will be seized.
Saitou wrote:
You do have the option of accepting the least terrible option put before you.
Done under duress. That makes it no less of a threat.
Saitou wrote:
If the burdens placed upon members of society are reasonable
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Are the burdens freely chosen? If not, you're advocating for an unchosen burden--an obligation for which there was no consent. How proper is that?
Saitou wrote:
There are situations that we are born into and we don't get the opportunity to opt-out of.
There's a difference between the metaphysically given and the manmade.
Saitou wrote:
While they can't be morally justified that doesn't change the facts. You'll say they're wrong and should be invalid then. Regardless, they are valid, the law of the land, and stand until changed by our democratic process.
That's part of the same reasoning used to justify Jim Crow.
Saitou wrote:
(I consider the burden placed upon many to be less than reasonable as I think our government is too large and many people overtaxed)
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
All who are net tax-givers are overtaxed.
Saitou wrote:
A reasonable and logical standard but not the one I would use. I'd look at the burden.
Again: did those who are taxed choose to be burdened? Or was the burden imposed without their consent?
Saitou wrote:
Who gets to decide that restitution is appropriate and in what amount?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Arbiters. Judges. Lawyers.
Saitou wrote:
Who decides who they are?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Who decides who the carpet-cleaners are?
Saitou wrote:
That doesn't answer my question.
Actually, it does.
Saitou wrote:
If I can choose my own arbiter, judge, and lawyer as I do my own carpet-cleaner then I choose people who will always let me have my way.
But the other side must agree to the arbiter/judge/lawyer.
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:03 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Saitou wrote:
You're basically repeating yourself here.
If I am--so what?
Feel free to continue but be aware it is unpersuasive.
Saitou wrote:
You need to use new arguments if you'd like to me to reach a different conclusion than I have.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You assume that such is my goal. It is not. One cannot use reason against those who have abandoned it, for they will not listen.
That's fine. I guess you just like to type on forums then. I guess I do too.
Saitou wrote:
I knew that was a consequence and seen it in practice my entire life.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
So why endorse something that you know is immoral?
Because not everything that is right to do or necessary is going to be moral by everyone's standards.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
That you know that taxation involves the initiation of force against individuals, yet somehow that is not immoral.
Saitou wrote:
I support the use of force in order to get compliance with laws I support.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Even if the enforcement of those laws violate the rights of others, like with Jim Crow?
Nicely loaded example. No, not like Jim Crow in any other manner than it's a law that is/was enforced. Notice I said laws I support. I do not support laws like Jim Crow.
Saitou wrote:
If I didn't those laws could simply be ignored. Usually the actual use of the force isn't necessary as people comply before it comes to that.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
And sometimes they don't comply, like Rosa Parks. What then? Arrest them for the crime of asserting their own individuality and their own rights?
Yes. And then such wrongs causes people to examine the laws and change them.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Morality is based on logic and reason.
Some morals can be but not that many of them can make that claim.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
The Way of the Thug.
If it humors you to think so go ahead. I'll remind you that any system of law even if not made by government would require the use of force for compliance.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
The government is the one with the legal monopoly on initiatory force, is it not?
Saitou wrote:
Sure but it too can act on my behalf.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You cannot have it act on your behalf to initiate force against me, i.e. tax me.
But I can and I do! Even right now.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Since you do not have the right to initiate force against me, neither can the government.
And yet it does.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You are thus simply trying to get the government to do what you rightfully cannot.
One of the functions of government is to make rules and laws and enforce them. I used the power of my vote to support some of these laws.
Saitou wrote:
You do have the option of accepting the least terrible option put before you.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Done under duress. That makes it no less of a threat.
Ok. It's a threat. I think we both already knew that it was.
Saitou wrote:
There are situations that we are born into and we don't get the opportunity to opt-out of.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
There's a difference between the metaphysically given and the manmade.
Now your in the area of what I call nonsense. Man-made things are less relevant? We live in a world of man.
Saitou wrote:
While they can't be morally justified that doesn't change the facts. You'll say they're wrong and should be invalid then. Regardless, they are valid, the law of the land, and stand until changed by our democratic process.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
That's part of the same reasoning used to justify Jim Crow.
That something can be used to support or perform an act that is wrong does not mean that same something itself is wrong.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Again: did those who are taxed choose to be burdened? Or was the burden imposed without their consent?
The latter. The same as other laws you must obey or face a penalty, citizen.
Saitou wrote:
If I can choose my own arbiter, judge, and lawyer as I do my own carpet-cleaner then I choose people who will always let me have my way.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
But the other side must agree to the arbiter/judge/lawyer.
What if we never agree? No trial ever occurs? I still win!
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:54 am
Saitou wrote:
You're basically repeating yourself here.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
If I am--so what?
Saitou wrote:
Feel free to continue but be aware it is unpersuasive.
You've admitted that you can't be persuaded.
Saitou wrote:
I knew that was a consequence and seen it in practice my entire life.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
So why endorse something that you know is immoral?
Saitou wrote:
Because not everything that is right to do or necessary is going to be moral by everyone's standards.
Yet there are certain basic rights, and violating them is immoral.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
That you know that taxation involves the initiation of force against individuals, yet somehow that is not immoral.
Saitou wrote:
I support the use of force in order to get compliance with laws I support.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Even if the enforcement of those laws violate the rights of others, like with Jim Crow?
Saitou wrote:
Nicely loaded example.
NMFP.
Saitou wrote:
No, not like Jim Crow in any other manner than it's a law that is/was enforced.
But some people supported Jim Crow, and some only enforced it because it was the law. Just like your stance.
So how EXACTLY are you different from those people? Answer: you aren't.
Saitou wrote:
If I didn't those laws could simply be ignored. Usually the actual use of the force isn't necessary as people comply before it comes to that.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
And sometimes they don't comply, like Rosa Parks. What then? Arrest them for the crime of asserting their own individuality and their own rights?
Saitou wrote:
Yes. And then such wrongs causes people to examine the laws and change them.
Ah, but according to the morality of some, enforcing those laws is moral and proper.
See where your stance leads?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
The Way of the Thug.
Saitou wrote:
If it humors you to think so go ahead.
It's simply a fact.
Saitou wrote:
I'll remind you that any system of law even if not made by government would require the use of force for compliance.
Ah, but now you're conflating retaliatory with initiatory force. That's dishonest.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
The government is the one with the legal monopoly on initiatory force, is it not?
Saitou wrote:
Sure but it too can act on my behalf.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You cannot have it act on your behalf to initiate force against me, i.e. tax me.
Saitou wrote:
But I can and I do!
Then you're a thug-by-proxy.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Since you do not have the right to initiate force against me, neither can the government.
Saitou wrote:
And yet it does.
Just like with Jim Crow. Fancy that.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You are thus simply trying to get the government to do what you rightfully cannot.
Saitou wrote:
One of the functions of government is to make rules and laws and enforce them.
If it humors you to think that.
Saitou wrote:
I used the power of my vote to support some of these laws.
Just like people supported Jim Crow.
Saitou wrote:
You do have the option of accepting the least terrible option put before you.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Done under duress. That makes it no less of a threat.
Saitou wrote:
Ok. It's a threat. I think we both already knew that it was.
And what sort of a threat it is? It is a threat of the initiation of force. Why should that be allowed?
Saitou wrote:
There are situations that we are born into and we don't get the opportunity to opt-out of.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
There's a difference between the metaphysically given and the manmade.
Saitou wrote:
Now your in the area of what I call nonsense.
No, it's not. For example, a person born with a birth-defect is born into a situation that the person cannot opt-out of. That is the metaphysically given. However, a person being born to a poor family can opt-out of being poor by education and hard work. The man-man.
Understand now?
Saitou wrote:
While they can't be morally justified that doesn't change the facts. You'll say they're wrong and should be invalid then. Regardless, they are valid, the law of the land, and stand until changed by our democratic process.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
That's part of the same reasoning used to justify Jim Crow.
Saitou wrote:
That something can be used to support or perform an act that is wrong does not mean that same something itself is wrong.
Yet in this case it is.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Again: did those who are taxed choose to be burdened? Or was the burden imposed without their consent?
Saitou wrote:
The latter. The same as other laws you must obey or face a penalty, citizen.
Then you admit that they are immoral.
Saitou wrote:
If I can choose my own arbiter, judge, and lawyer as I do my own carpet-cleaner then I choose people who will always let me have my way.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
But the other side must agree to the arbiter/judge/lawyer.
Saitou wrote:
What if we never agree? No trial ever occurs? I still win!
No, you really don't.
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:12 am
Saitou wrote:
Because not everything that is right to do or necessary is going to be moral by everyone's standards.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Yet there are certain basic rights, and violating them is immoral.
Perhaps but rights need to be protected to truly matter.
Saitou wrote:
No, not like Jim Crow in any other manner than it's a law that is/was enforced.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
But some people supported Jim Crow, and some only enforced it because it was the law. Just like your stance.
So how EXACTLY are you different from those people? Answer: you aren't.
Other than the entirely significant fact that I oppose Jim Crow?
Saitou wrote:
Yes. And then such wrongs causes people to examine the laws and change them.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Ah, but according to the morality of some, enforcing those laws is moral and proper.
See where your stance leads?
Apparently it leads to the elimination of segregation since that's what actually happened.
Saitou wrote:
I'll remind you that any system of law even if not made by government would require the use of force for compliance.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Ah, but now you're conflating retaliatory with initiatory force. That's dishonest.
Then you are saying laws should be opt-in?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
The government is the one with the legal monopoly on initiatory force, is it not?
Saitou wrote:
Sure but it too can act on my behalf.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You cannot have it act on your behalf to initiate force against me, i.e. tax me.
Saitou wrote:
But I can and I do!
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Then you're a thug-by-proxy.
It doesn't bother me if you think so. I pay taxes too.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You are thus simply trying to get the government to do what you rightfully cannot.
Saitou wrote:
One of the functions of government is to make rules and laws and enforce them.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
If it humors you to think that.
Oh? Is it not something our government does?
Saitou wrote:
You do have the option of accepting the least terrible option put before you.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Done under duress. That makes it no less of a threat.
Saitou wrote:
Ok. It's a threat. I think we both already knew that it was.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
And what sort of a threat it is? It is a threat of the initiation of force. Why should that be allowed?
Because I want taxes to be collected to fun what I believe is the necessary functions of government that's why. Why does my opinion trump your morality? Because we both live in the same country under the same democratic government and I have more votes on "my side".
Saitou wrote:
There are situations that we are born into and we don't get the opportunity to opt-out of.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
There's a difference between the metaphysically given and the manmade.
Saitou wrote:
Now your in the area of what I call nonsense.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No, it's not. For example, a person born with a birth-defect is born into a situation that the person cannot opt-out of. That is the metaphysically given. However, a person being born to a poor family can opt-out of being poor by education and hard work. The man-man.
Again since you're a smart guy you can come up with good examples for your position but we both know you are ignoring many more examples that support my position. Poverty is not a law but rather a condition. Your example is little better than saying you can opt-out of hunger by eating a sandwich.
You cannot opt-out of being subject to the laws of this country while you remain in it.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Again: did those who are taxed choose to be burdened? Or was the burden imposed without their consent?
Saitou wrote:
The latter. The same as other laws you must obey or face a penalty, citizen.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Then you admit that they are immoral.
I did some time ago. Laws don't have to be moral. You can often overturn a law for being a violation of the constitution but not morals.
Saitou wrote:
If I can choose my own arbiter, judge, and lawyer as I do my own carpet-cleaner then I choose people who will always let me have my way.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
But the other side must agree to the arbiter/judge/lawyer.
Saitou wrote:
What if we never agree? No trial ever occurs? I still win!
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No, you really don't.
But if I do something wrong and never agree on who gets to be arbiter/judge/lawyer then what happens?
Stuz719 Grand Poster
Joined: Apr 22, 2005
Posts: 1036
Posted:
Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:27 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Morality is based on logic and reason.
:rotf:
kmisho Grand Poster
Joined: Dec 06, 2005
Posts: 1678
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posted:
Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:48 am
Stuz719 wrote:
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Morality is based on logic and reason.
:rotf:
I agree with knight, but I put it differently because the objectification of morality is one of those perennial philosophical problems that people from time to time announce that they have solved.
If there is to be any hope of a viable moral system, it absolutely MUST be based on logic because logic is the only system that can provide a coherent foundation. To give up on logic as a possible foundation for morality is, then, to give up on morality itself.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:03 am
Saitou wrote:
Because not everything that is right to do or necessary is going to be moral by everyone's standards.
