neeeel

which guy? What did he do that deserves jail time? I am not saying he didnt do something, but the whole thing is very murky for me. Should he go to jail for trespassing? Breach of the peace?

I question this. Are you saying that taunting is justification for phyisical violence on the taunter? I dont see how that is possible, especially given that taunting is subjective. I dont really care what the protester had previously done. I dont care if he felt obligated to hit him or not. The only allowable use of violence under the NAP is self defence, or defence of others. Neither was the case in this particular instance of elbow throwing. Your argument allows me to beat up a criminal that is being taken away by police. Who gets to decide what is verbal agression? Who gets to decide at what point physical aggression is justified? What if I take offence to a comment about my hair? Do I get to punch you in the face? This seems to me to be a slippery slope to microagressions and safe spaces. Ye, the guy couldnt walk away, he was at least 5 metres away from the person, and instead of walking 5 metres in the opposite direction, he walks 5 metres TOWARDS the guy and elbows him in the face. I dont understand why you are defending this. playing a boom box is not initiating force. By that argument, requiring that the person turn off his boom box is initiating force. You are denying his experience and you wouldnt listen to reason, the fact that you only have 1 chance to meet your friend is irrelevant. Its obviously a flawed analogy, because you have to construct a "one off" instance in order for it to even start to make sense.

Is taunting grounds for the initiation of force? I am not disagreeing with you about the protesters. I dont know the full story, but I am sure that they did some crappy things. Still doesnt excuse this guy hitting someone with his elbow, as far as I can see

7:13

Even if we accept that your scenario is true, thats not what is happening in the moment of the thrown elbow. The person is leaving, or being escorted out, he isnt attacking anyone, or initiating force against anyone. The guy just walks up to him and throws the elbow. If someone breaks into your house, and is then leaving, or being escorted by police, you dont get to take out your anger or whatever on him by a physical blow. There is no way that thrown elbow is self defence, or defence of anyone else

The elbow seemed a pretty clear example of initiation of force to me.

I find the actual things shown in the video, the rhetoric, the thrown elbow, the baying crowd, quite disturbing to watch. perhaps thats what its meant to do, I dont know . I dont have the full story, for sure

Where did I say that?

Right. So stating the law of identity as the first premise in your argument does nothing. Are you saying that replacing "thou shall pursue virtue" can be replaced with A is A , in your argument, and its still the same? You dont need to. But if you want anyone to accept your logical argument, then you do. I never said there was. I said " I am not saying that your logical argument is circular, but that your definition of virtuousness is strange/circular" and this was referring to when you said "If it's not virtuous for me to justify my positions then why are you expecting me to justify them?"

is very different from It seems like you arent reading what I am writing, or perhaps you missed it when my post disappeared, because, to state it again, I am not saying that your logical argument is circular, but that your definition of virtuousness is strange/circular you have given me no reason to accept your premise (1) Saying "An elephant is an elephant" tells you nothing about elephants, and what you should or shouldnt do with them,

A post of mine has disappeared? I am confused

Right, which was why I was asking you to justify premise 1 And I wasnt saying that your argument was circular, I was saying that your definition of virtuousness was circular Edit: premise one isnt a tautology. I suppose you mean it is virtuous to pursue virtue? In which case, it still doesnt support your later premises

why is it virtuous to justify positions? I am not equating virtuosity with justifying of opinions, but I may be misunderstanding. It seems like you are defining virtuousness in a strange/circular way

no I am saying that your whole argument rests on statement 1. why should I accept statement 1?

you have to justify premise 1, for a start. What? This makes no sense, either as a statement meant to communicate something, or as a logical statement.

So as long as I believe it would be best, its not immoral for me to kill someone?

by this argument, we should cut off any and all body parts , at birth, that have any chance of infection or medical problems later on.

without removing all your teeth, there are some nasty problems and infections that could happen, so as soon as your teeth come in, we are going to remove them all.

You can make up , or come up with, any theory you want. The question is, is it actually true? Is there any evidence for it? How likely is it? How does it fit in with other theories? How did you arrive at your theory? You are free to believe whatever you want. But dont expect me to believe what you believe, unless you can support your theory with evidence.

no you cant

So, If I choose to believe in santa, thats fine, because its my choice? You know this is just a bullshit non argument, right?

This seems just the same as believing something because its comforting. Your life has and will always exist but in a different place to where you are now? sounds pretty woo-woo to me.

I am not saying that I disagree with you, or that you are wrong, but my response, if I was a child and being instructed in the above quote, would be "why?"

This seems like a pretty hefty claim, and Im not sure that you have shown that its true. This is your logic, as I understand it. P1) Something that exposes intellectual bigotries of adults is virtuous P2) children expose intellectual bigotries of adults C1) children are virtuous P3) It is desirable ( virtuous?) to propagate virtuousness P4) from C1, children display virtuousness C2) it is desirable to propagate children P5) Marriage is the best way to propagate children who are virtuous C3) marriage is virtuous this seems very flimsy to me. P1 isnt proven, P3 has a lot of hidden premises, C2 and C3 seems circular( its virtuous to be virtuous) , and I have been very generous in interpreting some of your statements ( eg marriage is the foundation of society) Meaning is subjective.

there is no way to get from "god exists" to "the god of the bible is the correct god", do you see how big a leap you are making? Even if we start with accepting the premise that god exists, that tells you nothing about god, and especially not about what god wants us to do.