27 ms·

I need a political/government theory and/or for the conversation to step away from a particular definition of obligation and similar semantics, to go forward at

I need a political/government theory and/or for the conversation to step away from a particular definition of obligation and similar semantics, to go forward at this point.

9rx 2y ago
A political theory has been presented several times now: Asserting "You must <insert expectation>" does not create an obligation. While you have put in every effort to skirt around the theory, my take is that you must reject it. Your replies would not fit otherwise. On the basis of that that assumption, - You are now obligated to make me lunch. I have asserted that you must do it. But what does that mean? We both know you aren't actually going to do it. You aren't going to feel remorse when you don't do it. You will suffer no consequences if you don't do it. What, exactly, is trying to be communicated with the word "obligation"? Per the dictionary, one must be compelled into an obligation. It is being compelled that adds sufficient information to justify the use of the word in that context. But where does it find information under your pet definition?
- davorak 2y ago
  > A political theory has been presented several times now: Asserting "You must <insert expectation>" does not create an obligation. You can call this a political/government theory, but it does not move the conversation forward. How does a government work under this theory? What makes a legitimate government, when is rebellion the morally correct choice, what is the right to rule, etc under this theory. You do not need to layout everything at once but you would need to lay out enough to connect it to the and to my comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43560855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43560855 And the conversation needs to step away from a particular definition of obligation and similar semantics, at least for me to go forward it.
  - 9rx 2y ago
    > How does a government work under this theory? It sometimes doesn't. Governments have failed many times throughout history. But assuming a typical state of government affairs: Obligation. An obligation to oneself, to one's peers, and perhaps even to force. One is normally compelled to see government work – because they want it to, or, at very least, are afraid of the consequences if it doesn't. None of that seems to apply in this case, though. So, again, if you remove the concept of being compelled, what is "obligation" trying to communicate?

I need a political/government theory and/or for the conversation to step away from a particular definition of obligation and similar semantics, to go forward at this point.

9rx 2y ago

A political theory has been presented several times now: Asserting "You must <insert expectation>" does not create an obligation. While you have put in every effort to skirt around the theory, my take is that you must reject it. Your replies would not fit otherwise. On the basis of that that assumption, - You are now obligated to make me lunch. I have asserted that you must do it. But what does that mean? We both know you aren't actually going to do it. You aren't going to feel remorse when you don't do it. You will suffer no consequences if you don't do it. What, exactly, is trying to be communicated with the word "obligation"? Per the dictionary, one must be compelled into an obligation. It is being compelled that adds sufficient information to justify the use of the word in that context. But where does it find information under your pet definition?

davorak 2y ago
> A political theory has been presented several times now: Asserting "You must <insert expectation>" does not create an obligation. You can call this a political/government theory, but it does not move the conversation forward. How does a government work under this theory? What makes a legitimate government, when is rebellion the morally correct choice, what is the right to rule, etc under this theory. You do not need to layout everything at once but you would need to lay out enough to connect it to the and to my comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43560855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43560855 And the conversation needs to step away from a particular definition of obligation and similar semantics, at least for me to go forward it.
- 9rx 2y ago
  > How does a government work under this theory? It sometimes doesn't. Governments have failed many times throughout history. But assuming a typical state of government affairs: Obligation. An obligation to oneself, to one's peers, and perhaps even to force. One is normally compelled to see government work – because they want it to, or, at very least, are afraid of the consequences if it doesn't. None of that seems to apply in this case, though. So, again, if you remove the concept of being compelled, what is "obligation" trying to communicate?