5 ms·

Ironically, I viewed libertarians exactly the way you do many years ago. I would have long grueling debates on the internet with American libertarians. They may

by aminok 10y ago

Ironically, I viewed libertarians exactly the way you do many years ago. I would have long grueling debates on the internet with American libertarians. They may as well have been speaking to a wall, because I discounted them and their views the same way you're doing now. >The state does get a special exemption from definitions. That's the point of having the definition of 'just' come from the state. This is basic stuff. No it gets no exemption. The state does not define justice. We categorize many state actions as unjust.

ajkjk 10y ago
As long as you're speaking in absolutes, not relative to a framework of thought, talking to you will continue to be like speaking to a wall. "The state does not define justice." It does for me. It does in America. So you're talking about "in your fantasy system, it doesn't". Who cares? You need to use the same definitions of words that everyone else is using. If you can't, won't, or are incapable of it, then talking to you is, indeed, like talking to a wall.
- aminok 10y ago
  'Justice' is not conventionally understood as being synonymous with law. You're employing a highly unconventional definition of 'justice' which would make your statements misleading to most. >You need to use the same definitions of words that everyone else is using. Everyone else does not use the same definition of justice as you. This is how justice is usually defined (first definition found through a Google search): >Justice definition, the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause. just: >just jəst/ adjective 1. based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. When used in the context of laws, justice refers to a legal remedy that is morally right, equitable, etc. Legal rulings are not automatically considered justice on account of being from the state. State actions everywhere, including in the US, are widely characterized as unjust, a miscarriage of justice, etc., when they are considered immoral. I suggest you stop being stubborn, because you're wrong.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  > It does for me. No, I really don't think so even in your case. You must have a limit where if a law was passed saying it was okay to .... something, that you'd object. Even if only such that you'd recognize it in a movie and say "Not in my America." It really is the people who define justice. The state codifies and enforces that. We try people (Nazis, Saddam Hussein, etc) for crimes that were legal by the laws of their state. The Italians try American CIA agents with kidnapping for extraordinary rendition. This is a widely held, almost universal view, that justice transcends law. > It does in America. We (my government and likely yours) recognize North Korea as a country, but we don't recognize it's actions as legitimate. So pure minimalistic statehood - the ability to have and hold land - isn't enough for legitimacy. What, beyond statehood, does America have that makes it legitimate. Can you put your finger on what parts matter to you? > You need to use the same definitions of words that everyone else is using You're the steelman. I don't think that's compatible with definitional nitpicking. > > So the government is not made of normal people? Is the USA run by lizards or something? > you seem utterly incapable of understanding basic, well-known positions, and you imagine I am delusional when your comprehension fails you. The Lizard comment was valid sarcasm. You're not only not steelmanning, you're playing the victim. You're rightly being called on your use of the word 'normal' because you're hand-waving so much away with it, and being so dismissive with the article.

by aminok 10y ago

ajkjk 10y ago

As long as you're speaking in absolutes, not relative to a framework of thought, talking to you will continue to be like speaking to a wall. "The state does not define justice." It does for me. It does in America. So you're talking about "in your fantasy system, it doesn't". Who cares? You need to use the same definitions of words that everyone else is using. If you can't, won't, or are incapable of it, then talking to you is, indeed, like talking to a wall.

aminok 10y ago
'Justice' is not conventionally understood as being synonymous with law. You're employing a highly unconventional definition of 'justice' which would make your statements misleading to most. >You need to use the same definitions of words that everyone else is using. Everyone else does not use the same definition of justice as you. This is how justice is usually defined (first definition found through a Google search): >Justice definition, the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause. just: >just jəst/ adjective 1. based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. When used in the context of laws, justice refers to a legal remedy that is morally right, equitable, etc. Legal rulings are not automatically considered justice on account of being from the state. State actions everywhere, including in the US, are widely characterized as unjust, a miscarriage of justice, etc., when they are considered immoral. I suggest you stop being stubborn, because you're wrong.
EdHominem 10y ago
> It does for me. No, I really don't think so even in your case. You must have a limit where if a law was passed saying it was okay to .... something, that you'd object. Even if only such that you'd recognize it in a movie and say "Not in my America." It really is the people who define justice. The state codifies and enforces that. We try people (Nazis, Saddam Hussein, etc) for crimes that were legal by the laws of their state. The Italians try American CIA agents with kidnapping for extraordinary rendition. This is a widely held, almost universal view, that justice transcends law. > It does in America. We (my government and likely yours) recognize North Korea as a country, but we don't recognize it's actions as legitimate. So pure minimalistic statehood - the ability to have and hold land - isn't enough for legitimacy. What, beyond statehood, does America have that makes it legitimate. Can you put your finger on what parts matter to you? > You need to use the same definitions of words that everyone else is using You're the steelman. I don't think that's compatible with definitional nitpicking. > > So the government is not made of normal people? Is the USA run by lizards or something? > you seem utterly incapable of understanding basic, well-known positions, and you imagine I am delusional when your comprehension fails you. The Lizard comment was valid sarcasm. You're not only not steelmanning, you're playing the victim. You're rightly being called on your use of the word 'normal' because you're hand-waving so much away with it, and being so dismissive with the article.