4 ms·

Nice try, but I see the huge difference between something like "don't rape people, or we all agreed you should be locked up" and "don't mention the Tiananmen sq

Nice try, but I see the huge difference between something like "don't rape people, or we all agreed you should be locked up" and "don't mention the Tiananmen square massacre, or the unaccountable rulers will lock you up for endangering their power, or hurt your family if they can't punish you directly"

throwaway210222 5y ago
And somewhere in between those two is "don't be in the wrong place when we are rounding up people we don't like in a country we just invaded, else you might just spend 15 years in an island prison without charge, representation, or compensation." Perhaps you would prefer to retry this by writing down your inalienable principles.
- howaboutnope 5y ago
  And "retry" what? That "all states are based on coercive violence" doesn't mean Nazi Germany and modern Sweden or Finland are essentially the same, and when someone pretends that's a good argument, that even needs rebuttal, anything I reply to that will get some further sophistry in response. Might as well say considering the heat death of the universe, the outcome of all actions is the same. Technically true, but realistically not worth my time. > And somewhere in between those two is "don't be in the wrong place when we are rounding up people we don't like in a country we just invaded, else you might just spend 15 years in an island prison without charge, representation, or compensation." What actually matters is that "coercive violence" ALSO applies to locking up rapists. So instead of avoiding that, tell me how there is an issue with that, as if all coercion was the same, no matter the reason or context or outcome. You can bring countless examples for violent coercion in bad faith with bad outcomes in Western democracies, but I still only need that one example to refute the idea that all coercion is the same, and equally bad. This is so trivial that it shouldn't even need mentioning, and that comment I replied to doesn't even pass the smell test.
rebuilder 5y ago
Ok, so maybe the original position you presented need to be qualified somehow, because as it was written, it sounds like you would be opposed to all coercion and feel personally responsible for stopping it, somehow. I was curious about that somehow part, that’s all.
- howaboutnope 5y ago
  I oppose ruling via violence and murder. And generally, I think coercion needs to be justified, and often can be. When a child runs into a busy street, and yelling "stop" doesn't suffice, then you grab that child to keep it from run over. That's coercion, and perfectly fine in my books. As are taxes (as a general idea, of course the corrupt ways they're often spent aren't), and many other things. And I know I am personally responsible, feeling doesn't enter into it. I'm not religious, and nobody can take the responsibility of judging and acting from me. There is nobody to hide behind, nobody to take orders from. The buck stops with me just like it stops with you.

throwaway210222 5y ago

And somewhere in between those two is "don't be in the wrong place when we are rounding up people we don't like in a country we just invaded, else you might just spend 15 years in an island prison without charge, representation, or compensation." Perhaps you would prefer to retry this by writing down your inalienable principles.

howaboutnope 5y ago
And "retry" what? That "all states are based on coercive violence" doesn't mean Nazi Germany and modern Sweden or Finland are essentially the same, and when someone pretends that's a good argument, that even needs rebuttal, anything I reply to that will get some further sophistry in response. Might as well say considering the heat death of the universe, the outcome of all actions is the same. Technically true, but realistically not worth my time. > And somewhere in between those two is "don't be in the wrong place when we are rounding up people we don't like in a country we just invaded, else you might just spend 15 years in an island prison without charge, representation, or compensation." What actually matters is that "coercive violence" ALSO applies to locking up rapists. So instead of avoiding that, tell me how there is an issue with that, as if all coercion was the same, no matter the reason or context or outcome. You can bring countless examples for violent coercion in bad faith with bad outcomes in Western democracies, but I still only need that one example to refute the idea that all coercion is the same, and equally bad. This is so trivial that it shouldn't even need mentioning, and that comment I replied to doesn't even pass the smell test.

rebuilder 5y ago

Ok, so maybe the original position you presented need to be qualified somehow, because as it was written, it sounds like you would be opposed to all coercion and feel personally responsible for stopping it, somehow. I was curious about that somehow part, that’s all.

howaboutnope 5y ago
I oppose ruling via violence and murder. And generally, I think coercion needs to be justified, and often can be. When a child runs into a busy street, and yelling "stop" doesn't suffice, then you grab that child to keep it from run over. That's coercion, and perfectly fine in my books. As are taxes (as a general idea, of course the corrupt ways they're often spent aren't), and many other things. And I know I am personally responsible, feeling doesn't enter into it. I'm not religious, and nobody can take the responsibility of judging and acting from me. There is nobody to hide behind, nobody to take orders from. The buck stops with me just like it stops with you.