3 ms·

I've always heard aggression defined as roughly: Initiating or threatening any forceful action against an individual or their property Is your complaint that

• leetcrew 6y ago
  yes, "threatening" and even "forceful" are subject to interpretation. suppose you see me walking around town with a rifle. is that threatening? maybe not if you're comfortable with open carry, but what if I do it on the sidewalk in front of your house? is it a violation of NAP to not wear a mask during a pandemic? what if I've already tested positive for covid and am refusing to quarantine? or what if I know that I have a detectable viral load for HIV and have sex without informing my partner? another interesting example: if you accept the claim that racist speech is an implicit threat of violence, you can use NAP to justify deplatforming. you can make NAP imply almost any position you want, depending on how you interpret it. only a very specific and narrow interpretation implies the typical positions held by (US) libertarians.
  • ByteJockey 6y ago
    That's fair. When it comes up, it's usually limited to explicit threats. Basically if you don't flat out say "I'm going to do X", that's not really counted. But I can see why it's confusing for an outsider.