4 ms·

It seems pretty clear that I was advocating a position of nonaggression, not nonviolence. I think extreme escalation of violence is the most effective response

It seems pretty clear that I was advocating a position of nonaggression, not nonviolence. I think extreme escalation of violence is the most effective response to aggression. > people you deem unworthy I'm not deeming anyone "unworthy". I'm just pointing out that humans who act literally like dangerous animals should be treated as such. To me, humanity is a mode of behaviour, not an irrevocable trait.

woodruffw 4y ago
Splitting hairs vis-a-vis "aggression" and "violence" might work well in your libertarian circles, but it doesn't impress the rest of us. What you're describing is murdering homeless drug addicts because you think they're dangerous, despite their primary danger being to themselves (and, indirectly, our ability to humanize others.) I eagerly await your application of the same logic to tailpipe emissions.
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  It's convenient to put me into a category you disagree with and then dismiss me, but it's not really a great argument is it? Aggression and violence are clearly very different things. If they weren't, self-defence would not be a justification for anything. Ignoring this clear and sharp distinction does nothing to help you either. Why should humans who behave indistinguishably from dangerous wild animals be treated any differently? Is immediate and severe escalation of violence in response to aggression ineffective? > primary danger being to themselves The secondary danger posed to innocent people, as well as the knock-on effects of normalizing minor property crime (colloquially "we can't have nice things") and the erosion of the innate trust in strangers that more civilized places tend to have, don't seem worth feeling good about how empathetic and virtuous you are.
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    > Why should humans who behave indistinguishably from dangerous wild animals be treated any differently? Because they aren't dangerous wild animals, while dangerous wild animals are. In humans dangerous wild behaviour is a (hopefully, and ususally) more or less temporary and fixable aberration, while in many kinds of animals it's the immutable default. That difference shouldn't be too difficult to grasp, or is it? > Is immediate and severe escalation of violence in response to aggression ineffective? Not at fixing the immediate danger, but yes, as a means of maintaining a human(e) society it seems rather ineffective.
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      > Because they aren't dangerous wild animals The humans in question are dangerous, they're not civilized (so they're wild), and they're animals, so yes, they are. > In humans dangerous wild behaviour is a (hopefully, and ususally) more or less temporary and fixable aberration This isn't substantiated by research. Quite the opposite actually, psychologists have found that no intervention is effective in modifying violent antisocial behaviour in young males (and it's almost entirely young males). The only solution seems to be incarceration until around the age of 30, at which point most people simply age out of these behaviour patterns. Also, there are many dangerous animals that can be rehabilitated, pet dogs for instance. It doesn't stop us from mandating they be put down. > as a means of maintaining a human(e) society it seems rather ineffective. I'm asserting it's effective at maintaining peace and order. I'm also asserting that the fact of peace and order is more important than the treatment of those who violate it.
      - CRConrad 4y ago
        > 'm asserting it's effective at maintaining peace and order. I'm also asserting that the fact of peace and order is more important than the treatment of those who violate it. And I could assert quite a lot about your assertions, the mindset behind them, and what kind of society that leads to. But I can't be arsed to: No matter how many deluded authoritarians you manage to bring to their senses, or just reduce to a heap of smoking online cinders, more fresh ones just keep popping up. And I got bored with Usenet flamewars decades ago.
        thegrimmest 4y ago
        Seems like you're saying that wanting to live in a truly safe place - a place where you can leave your doors, cars and bikes unlocked - is the dream of a deluded authoritarian. I guess I just disagree. These places do exist, and they are rather nice.
- RestlessMind 4y ago
  > Splitting hairs vis-a-vis "aggression" and "violence" might work well in your libertarian circles I am certainly not a libertarian. Having said that, here is a scenario which clarifies the difference between "aggression" and "violence", imo - someone peacefully living in their home, when someone breaks in for a burglary. At that point, if the homeowner shoots and kills the burglar, that behavior is non-aggressive, violent and justified in my opinion. So yes, definitely not hairsplitting and nothing to do with liberatarianism.

woodruffw 4y ago

Splitting hairs vis-a-vis "aggression" and "violence" might work well in your libertarian circles, but it doesn't impress the rest of us. What you're describing is murdering homeless drug addicts because you think they're dangerous, despite their primary danger being to themselves (and, indirectly, our ability to humanize others.) I eagerly await your application of the same logic to tailpipe emissions.

thegrimmest 4y ago
It's convenient to put me into a category you disagree with and then dismiss me, but it's not really a great argument is it? Aggression and violence are clearly very different things. If they weren't, self-defence would not be a justification for anything. Ignoring this clear and sharp distinction does nothing to help you either. Why should humans who behave indistinguishably from dangerous wild animals be treated any differently? Is immediate and severe escalation of violence in response to aggression ineffective? > primary danger being to themselves The secondary danger posed to innocent people, as well as the knock-on effects of normalizing minor property crime (colloquially "we can't have nice things") and the erosion of the innate trust in strangers that more civilized places tend to have, don't seem worth feeling good about how empathetic and virtuous you are.
- CRConrad 4y ago
  > Why should humans who behave indistinguishably from dangerous wild animals be treated any differently? Because they aren't dangerous wild animals, while dangerous wild animals are. In humans dangerous wild behaviour is a (hopefully, and ususally) more or less temporary and fixable aberration, while in many kinds of animals it's the immutable default. That difference shouldn't be too difficult to grasp, or is it? > Is immediate and severe escalation of violence in response to aggression ineffective? Not at fixing the immediate danger, but yes, as a means of maintaining a human(e) society it seems rather ineffective.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    > Because they aren't dangerous wild animals The humans in question are dangerous, they're not civilized (so they're wild), and they're animals, so yes, they are. > In humans dangerous wild behaviour is a (hopefully, and ususally) more or less temporary and fixable aberration This isn't substantiated by research. Quite the opposite actually, psychologists have found that no intervention is effective in modifying violent antisocial behaviour in young males (and it's almost entirely young males). The only solution seems to be incarceration until around the age of 30, at which point most people simply age out of these behaviour patterns. Also, there are many dangerous animals that can be rehabilitated, pet dogs for instance. It doesn't stop us from mandating they be put down. > as a means of maintaining a human(e) society it seems rather ineffective. I'm asserting it's effective at maintaining peace and order. I'm also asserting that the fact of peace and order is more important than the treatment of those who violate it.
    - CRConrad 4y ago
      > 'm asserting it's effective at maintaining peace and order. I'm also asserting that the fact of peace and order is more important than the treatment of those who violate it. And I could assert quite a lot about your assertions, the mindset behind them, and what kind of society that leads to. But I can't be arsed to: No matter how many deluded authoritarians you manage to bring to their senses, or just reduce to a heap of smoking online cinders, more fresh ones just keep popping up. And I got bored with Usenet flamewars decades ago.
      - thegrimmest 4y ago
        Seems like you're saying that wanting to live in a truly safe place - a place where you can leave your doors, cars and bikes unlocked - is the dream of a deluded authoritarian. I guess I just disagree. These places do exist, and they are rather nice.
RestlessMind 4y ago
> Splitting hairs vis-a-vis "aggression" and "violence" might work well in your libertarian circles I am certainly not a libertarian. Having said that, here is a scenario which clarifies the difference between "aggression" and "violence", imo - someone peacefully living in their home, when someone breaks in for a burglary. At that point, if the homeowner shoots and kills the burglar, that behavior is non-aggressive, violent and justified in my opinion. So yes, definitely not hairsplitting and nothing to do with liberatarianism.