prev <-> next
[2004-05-19 13:45:00] - paul: it all depends on the person. If the interview is really important to you, than take the whole day off. -dave
[2004-05-19 13:44:00] - http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fe20040513rh.htm Barbie has the perfect body, biologically speaking -Paul
[2004-05-19 13:43:00] - http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9593413%255E2,00.html Women rape men in AIDS fury -Paul
[2004-05-19 13:42:00] - Vinnie: But I'll take advice from anybody else who wants to give it also.
-Paul[2004-05-19 13:41:00] - http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/15/international/europe/15VATI.html?ei=5006&en=177765190776e112&ex=1085284800&adxnnl=1&partner=ALTAVISTA1&adx Vatican Discourages Marriage With Muslims for Catholic Women -Paul
[2004-05-19 13:41:00] - mel, he wasn't asking you, he was asking question
- vinnie[2004-05-19 13:37:00] - Paul: take the whole day off. Interviews are really important and I wouldn't want to be distracted with worrying about work in the morning. -mel
[2004-05-19 13:34:00] - Question: If you had an interview with some company at 2:30 in the afternoon on a Tuesday, would you take the entire day off or work for the first half of the day? -Paul
[2004-05-19 12:31:00] - oh and just a little update on the marcus vick situation, it wasn't clear from the espn article, but he was cleared of the charges that he had sex with the 15 year old. - mig
[2004-05-19 11:44:00] - likewise for me and king of the hill
- vinnie[2004-05-19 11:40:00] - paul: It's ratings diarrhea - aaron
[2004-05-19 11:40:00] - paul: No laugh tracks allowed in between the hours of 8:00 and 10:00 on fox - aaron
[2004-05-19 11:38:00] - Vinnie: Arrested development doesn't have a laugh track so I don't know when to laugh.
-Paul[2004-05-19 11:36:00] - vinnie: good news! - aaron
[2004-05-19 11:32:00] - whatever, I was quite pleased by this: "Borderline ratings performer Arrested Development is now looking like it will get a second season " - vinnie
[2004-05-19 11:30:00] - Angel is the same way - vinnie
[2004-05-19 11:30:00] - Alias actually isn't that big a show for all they hype it. it gets a lot more critical attention than ratings. and yes, very expensive to produce - vinnie
[2004-05-19 11:29:00] - (it took me like 20 minutes but i finally figured out what was wrong with that statement) - aaron
[2004-05-19 11:29:00] - paul: A gay lawmaker? Now you're really talking in ideals - aaron
[2004-05-19 11:28:00] - What else does ABC have, anyway? It seems like Alias is a big name show that they would want to keep around, unless it's getting too expensive to produce. -Paul
[2004-05-19 11:24:00] - the shield starts midseason too, but that's because it's a 13-ep show. i guess my point is that it doesn't have to mean they aren't behind alias. although, you're right, it could - vinnie
[2004-05-19 11:23:00] - but I should say, they did it for the same reasons abc is stating, to let a newcomer get the benefit of start-of-season publicity - vinnie
[2004-05-19 11:22:00] - hbo has started sopranos and curb your enthusiasm late, but I'm guessing you wanted a regular station - vinnie
[2004-05-19 11:21:00] - what station has ever started a show midseason that it was fully behind? that's the place you start untested shows like buffy - travis
[2004-05-19 11:20:00] - http://www.inpassing.org/node/view/1989 Such a cruel way to talk to a four-year old! - aaron
[2004-05-19 11:19:00] - uninterrupted by putting it up against the super bowl, the oscars, the golden globes, etc. - travis
[2004-05-19 11:13:00] - so it makes sense as far as I can tell - vinnie
[2004-05-19 11:13:00] - the alternative is to pepper the off-weeks with reruns or one-time specials - vinnie
[2004-05-19 11:12:00] - incidentally, I'm quite happy by the pushback because it means I don't have to rush to watch season 3 on DVD - vinnie
[2004-05-19 11:11:00] - travis: i heard it's still doing a 20-ep run which is pretty damn close to normal. I thought the reasoning was to keep all the episodes together while ending during finale sweeps - vinnie
[2004-05-19 11:11:00] - I thought Alias was one of ABC's big hits. -Paul
[2004-05-19 11:10:00] - Travis: How do you figure? -Paul
[2004-05-19 11:08:00] - which essentially means ABC is killing alias, for those who care - travis
[2004-05-19 11:08:00] - Aaron: You saw the first X-Men movie. All it will take is for there to be enough gay law-makers to make gay marriage something that the "government" wants.
-Paul[2004-05-19 11:06:00] - "The big news however is that the network is expected to shelve the fourth season of “Alias” until midseason in order to give newcomer “Desperate Housewives” a higher profile launch on Sunday nights. “Alias” would then return in January for the an uninterrupted run." - travis
[2004-05-19 11:06:00] - paul: Well... they still can't marry guys, and that's all that matters
- aaron[2004-05-19 11:04:00] - Aaron: But the government stops itself from doing a lot less things.
-Paul[2004-05-19 10:59:00] - paul: And yes that's what I meant. The government stops me from doing things in the same way that the government stops the government from doing things - aaron
[2004-05-19 10:58:00] - paul: Maybe - although if the government could truly grant themselves permission to do anything, I think their salaries would be much higher. I think the self-regulation thing accomplishes a lot more than you give them credit for - aaron
[2004-05-19 10:56:00] - http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_959280.html 13 year old shows off too much cleavage for a Catholic School. -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:55:00] - Aaron: On some level, you are right in that government permission is the difference. I just think that there is a difference between the government granting itself permission to do something and the government granting you permission to do something. -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:52:00] - paul: The same thing is stopping me from doing anything legally, that is stopping the government from doing anything legally - aaron
[2004-05-19 10:50:00] - Aaron: Ok, so what if I said there is nothing stopping you from doing anything legally? -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:48:00] - paul: My point is you can't observe what something "wants", so it's useless to prove anything related to what something wants - aaron
[2004-05-19 10:44:00] - Aaron: Is your point that you don't want to do anything illegal? -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:44:00] - Aaron: Actually, I think the point you're trying to prove to me is the same point I'm trying to prove to Pierce. -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:43:00] - aaron: do you have your own police force and the power to make laws? - mig
[2004-05-19 10:43:00] - lazy! finish your damn own sarcastic... - vinnie
[2004-05-19 10:42:00] - paul: I'll agree the government can legally do anything they want if you agree I can legally do anything I want - aaron
[2004-05-19 10:41:00] - Dave: <insert random sarcastic comment>
-Paul[2004-05-19 10:39:00] - paul: I recommend glasses ^_^ -dave
[2004-05-19 10:38:00] - Pierce: I don't see how that is any more logically permissable. -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:38:00] - Okay, on that note I gotta drop. Work calls. - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:37:00] - Paul: in other words, your burden of proof on the "force" topic is only impossible because you're trying to prove an overly general claim in and of itself. It wouldn't be so bad if you'd just use it as a prerequisite to drawing a clearer conclusion. - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:37:00] - vinnie: Pshh, Even I could do that, if I wanted to! - aaron
[2004-05-19 10:36:00] - Paul: alternatively. Then, you only need to prove that pollution doesn't harm mermaids to an observably significant extent. - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:35:00] - Pierce: You need to prove that pollution doesn't harm mermaids? -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:35:00] - vinnie: poor govt, can't even create a column, hehe -dave
[2004-05-19 10:35:00] - And in this case, that means I only need to show that we haven't observed any mermaids. - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:35:00] - paul: Get married when? I'll bet by the time I meet someone I want to marry, it might be legal! - aaron
[2004-05-19 10:34:00] - Paul: the assumed link is that "we shouldn't pollute the ocean if there are mermaids in it". If I'm just trying to say there are no mermaids, then I'm making a vague and nearly unprovable claim. But when I'm aiming at the pollution conclusion, I need only prove the prerequisites inasmuch as they apply to the conclusion. - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:33:00] - haha, the govt can't create a column that they themselves can't remove. so they can't do whatever they want
- vinnie[2004-05-19 10:33:00] - Pierce: You're right, I'm totally lost. What is the pollution conclusion and why does it change what you need to prove? -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:32:00] - vinnie: HEHE -dave
[2004-05-19 10:32:00] - paul: he just has to move to massachussets =P -dave
[2004-05-19 10:31:00] - So by drawing a real conclusion, I make both burdens of proof achievable. - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:31:00] - if applying to theoretical, i.e., the govt could give themselves the power: the govt could give anyone outside the govt any power, thus the govt wouldn't be the only power capable of doing what it wants using lethal force. QED - vinnie
[2004-05-19 10:31:00] - Paul: no, you misunderstood. By drawing my "pollution" conclusion, I no longer need to prove it has no mermaids. Only that we haven't observed it. Subsequently, to argue against my claim one would have to prove that there are mermaids in the ocean. - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:30:00] - Aaron: Get married?
-Paul[2004-05-19 10:30:00] - aaron: haha nice, I just realized what you said ^_^ -dave
[2004-05-19 10:29:00] - Pierce: And what practically exercisable reason can you give which would "prove" that the ocean has no mermaids in it? -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:29:00] - paul: And yeah, I changed it to legally, because I remembered your statement had a "legally" in it. - aaron
[2004-05-19 10:29:00] - paul: Why do you think it's false? What can't i legally do, that I want to do? - aaron
[2004-05-19 10:28:00] - My burden of proof was practically impossible. But by limiting it to how it applies to a firmer conclusion, I don't need to prove it as far. Same for you. - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:28:00] - Dave: Ah, ok. In that case it was my bad. That's often true, but not always. I must've missed a "mostly" in there. -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:28:00] - then all I need to prove is that we can't observe any mermaids. The burden of proof against my claim is that one would have to show that there are mermaids in the ocean. - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:27:00] - Paul: if I'm saying that the ocean has no mermaids in it, and that that claim has inherent practical value, then I have to show that the ocean either does not, or cannot (for some practically exerciseable reason) contain mermaids. But if I'm saying that we don't have to worry about polluting the ocean because we don't know of any mermaids in it...
[2004-05-19 10:27:00] - paul: ahh ok. previous statement was "you can tell whether the comment is sarcastic or not if it has a smiley" -dave
[2004-05-19 10:27:00] - if applying to now: the govt can't legally assassinate the president, I'm thinking. right? - vinnie
[2004-05-19 10:26:00] - Aaron: Well now you changed it to legally, which I still think is false btw. -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:26:00] - Pierce: I'm not whining, I'm stating that by your ultra-strict standards I cannot prove my point. So congrats, you won. -paul
[2004-05-19 10:26:00] - aaron: I knew there was a reason I always knew to be nice to you! -dave
[2004-05-19 10:25:00] - Dave: I forget what I said, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a black or white thing where all smiles are sarcastic comments and all sarcastic comments have smilies. -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:25:00] - paul: I don't think you can disprove it at all! I am legally capable of doing anything I want. You can't disprove that. - aaron
[2004-05-19 10:25:00] - Paul: quit whining. Draw a practical conclusion (for example, more clearly state what you began to say about gun control as a consequence of your claim), and then you won't have to prove every friggin example. - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:25:00] - ok, from what I've gathered the original statement means: the ability to do anything to anyone, but it's not clear whether the statement applies to what the govt can do in theory or what they can do now - vinnie
[2004-05-19 10:24:00] - paul: ahh, then your previous comments on telling if your comments are sarcastic by your smileys isn't entirely true? -dave
[2004-05-19 10:24:00] - Aaron: I can disprove it easy enough, and Pierce could try to disprove my statement. It's proving it's true that is virtually imossible by his standards. -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:24:00] - Mig: what about all the eminent domain horror stories I've read where the tragic conclusion was that they didn't get their possessions back until after a lengthy, expensive legal battle? People most certainly have won against the government in some of those cases. - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:23:00] - Furthermore, the federal government can also take your money and assets thanks to the wonderful drug war and terrorism, and doesn't even have to charge you with a crime to take those things away legally. - mig
[2004-05-19 10:23:00] - Pierce: Well, if you won't believe that the statement has any practical truth to it unless I prove it is true for everything, then I guess you're going to have to go without a proof. -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:23:00] - Paul: I hereby proclaim that I can do anything I want, too! Disprove that, biatch - aaron
[2004-05-19 10:23:00] - mig: oh? I'm sure some corporation has got the govt. to change what exactly they were going to foreclose on -dave
[2004-05-19 10:22:00] - dave: that may be true for state and local governments trying it, but i don't think anyone who has fought the federal government attempts to take their property has ever won... - mig
[2004-05-19 10:22:00] - Dave: I wasn't being sarcastic. -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:22:00] - or hey, I can make sarcastic comments of my own ^_^ -dave
[2004-05-19 10:21:00] - Paul: it's a silly amount of proof to need, because your original statement is sillily vague. That's why it behooves you to try and prove something else with it, so that you don't need to prove it as far. - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:21:00] - <trying to delete paul's sarcastic comments> -dave
[2004-05-19 10:20:00] - Mig: Pierce wants examples for everything. So don't bother.
-Paul[2004-05-19 10:20:00] - vinnie: heh heh -dave
[2004-05-19 10:20:00] - Pierce: Well, no offense, but I think it's silly to ask me to provide proof that the government can or will take everything because it would take something close to an infinite amount of years to write it all down. -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:20:00] - mig: interestingly enough, the practicalities of eminent domain aren't so clear. Like if you have enough money, you can lobby the govt. to not foreclose or whatever on your property. Or if you get enough people to sign a petition etc -dave
[2004-05-19 10:19:00] - they can take our lives, but they can never take our freedom! oh wait, yes they can... - vinnie
[2004-05-19 10:18:00] - Mig: that's not "whatever it wants", that's one example of something it wants (or a subset thereof). Furthermore, many of the examples I've seen of emininent domain abuse are technically against the government's rules for itself to some degree, and therefore inapplicable to this discussion. - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:17:00] - Paul: in order for your (extremely broad) original statement to be practically true, yes. - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:17:00] - paul: Something the government can't get?? - aaron
[2004-05-19 10:17:00] - pierce: eminent domain? that is probably the most striking example of the government using force to legally get whatever it wants. - mig
[2004-05-19 10:17:00] - paul: Hmmmm okaaaay. So to disprove your statement I would need to give you.... - aaron
[2004-05-19 10:17:00] - Paul: we can't tell you what proof we need unless you tell us what you're trying to prove. If you're just trying to prove that your original claim is practically true, then I've told you what proof you need. - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:17:00] - Pierce: Ok, so you really do want me to show that the government would take everything? -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:16:00] - Aaron: "to get whatever they want". -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:16:00] - paul: he's asking for a conclusion, not proof -dave
[2004-05-19 10:16:00] - Paul: that your original claim is practically true. In and of itself, you have to prove that the government has (or practically would) taken every single thing. If you're trying to use it to prove something else, then you need only prove it true as far as it applies. - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:16:00] - <echoing pierce> ^_^ -dave
[2004-05-19 10:16:00] - Pierce: I'VE BEEN TRYING to draw a clear conclusion, but I have no idea what you're looking for. You need to tell me what you want as proof before I can give it to you. -paul
[2004-05-19 10:15:00] - paul: So to take the contrapositive, there are no people other than the U.S government who are capable of legally killing people? Maybe that statement holds value (if true) - aaron
[2004-05-19 10:15:00] - Paul: what, WHAT is the functional value. Draw a (clear) conclusion or stop saying it has practical value. - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:14:00] - Pierce: What is "that statement"? -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:14:00] - Dave: Depending on how you judge practical or functional value, I think it does. -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:13:00] - Paul: until you attempt to draw a clearer conclusion from that statement, yes. If you're using it to prove something else, then you need only prove it (practically) true inasfar as it applies to your final conclusion. - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:13:00] - Pierce: You have about anarcho capitalism, the rest is stuff that other people have said. Tell me how I can prove to you that it's true in practice. -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:13:00] - paul: ahh, well when you say "I'm saying it is true in practice" it seems like you're saying your statement has practical or functional value -dave
[2004-05-19 10:12:00] - Paul: what the hell? I haven't said anything about anarcho-capitalism or gun control in any statement you might be responding to. You're saying your claim is true in practice, but failing to prove it. - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:12:00] - Pierce: So I have to give you an example where the government has taken every single thing in the history of the world in order to prove it is practically correct? -paul
[2004-05-19 10:12:00] - paul: so to take it a step further: if you want to prove that your statement has some functional value, than all arguments of your statement being purely theoretical are invalid -dave
[2004-05-19 10:11:00] - Dave: I didn't think I have been. -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:11:00] - Pierce: Huh? I'm SAYING that it's true in practice and that's it. I'm not implying that anarcho capitalist is better or that the government is evil or that I should own a gun. I'm just saying that the statement is true in theory and in practice. -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:11:00] - Paul: but you've failed to convince us (or at least me) that the government could (practically) legally use force to get anything it wants (or even that "it" would have a singular idea of what "it" wants to begin with). That's where I take issue. - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:11:00] - paul: err, theoretical anymore -dave
[2004-05-19 10:10:00] - paul: I think what pierce is trying to say, is that if you are going to try to say that your theoretical statement has practical implications, then you can't use the defense that the statement is just theoreticaly anymore -dave
[2004-05-19 10:09:00] - Vinnie: Which original statement?
-Paul[2004-05-19 10:09:00] - Paul: see, to say you're implying "nothing", but then to assume a conclusion ("Neither is my statement false in practice") is not a valid argument style. - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:09:00] - travis: really? I may not be remembering correctly, but I thought Aphrodite magicked her to Paris' side. I'll have to go look that up sometime -dave
[2004-05-19 10:09:00] - Pierce: I'm saying the statement is true in theory AND in practice, but I'm not implying anything with it at all. -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:09:00] - paul: Eery! - aaron
[2004-05-19 10:09:00] - paul: i understand, but I don't think it relates to the original point, assuming we're talking about theoreticals (I see no one chose to answer my question about what the original statement means) - vinnie
[2004-05-19 10:08:00] - Aaron: I never said it was a viable reason to not trust the government. I mean, really, where are you people getting all these supposed things that I'm trying to say just by defending this statement? -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:08:00] - Paul: so you're making a claim, but not implying that it is true in practice or has any practical value whatsoever. You are merely saying that it is technically true. Which has already been agreed upon. So stop arguing, then. Shit or get off the can. - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:07:00] - Pierce: Neither is my statement false in practice. -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:07:00] - Aaron: I distrust the government for stuff that can happen and has happened and most likely will happen. -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:06:00] - Pierce: I'm implying nothing! NOTHING! Nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing.
It's not even "my claim". I don't know where it came from. I just saw Adrian say he disagreed and decided to defend what I saw as a reasonable statement. -Paul[2004-05-19 10:05:00] - aaron: So our government falls apart if 900 elected officials collude to kill us. A paulocracy would equally fail if %99 of the world colluded to kill you. It just doesn't seem like a viable reason to distrust the government - aaron
[2004-05-19 10:04:00] - Vinnie: Yes, but there is a difference between a law imposed on you by somebody else and a law imposed on you by yourself. Especially when the outside force is what defines 'legal' -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:04:00] - Paul: because my statement isn't false in practice, and therefore has some value. - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:03:00] - paul: I'm saying that you shouldn't distrust something just based on something that could theoretically happen, but in all practicality won't. All kinds of crazy things are possible in any kind of government if enough people collude to be silly with eachother - aaron
[2004-05-19 10:03:00] - Pierce: Really, this is as simple a statement as what you were talking about yesterday (yes, now I'm trying to draw a parallel). I'm finding it confusing why you are arguing against it so much. -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:02:00] - Paul: be more clear, then. What, EXACTLY, are you implying with your claim? What real situation (or hypothetical situation which could practically exist) are you applying it to? - pierce
[2004-05-19 10:01:00] - paul: again, the government can take away its own right theoretically. maybe we should drop this point since you can't remember what it has to do with the original statement either
- vinnie[2004-05-19 10:01:00] - Aaron: I totally do not see your point. -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:01:00] - Pierce: I don't see that as a problem. That's part of the statement. I think you're trying to imply a lot more from that statement than what it says. It says nothing about a single person, or killing everybody, or always killing. Not at all. -Paul
[2004-05-19 10:00:00] - i'm convinced the original statement is too vague. are we talking any amount of force? every person in the US? now or theoretically? - vinnie
[2004-05-19 09:59:00] - Paul: I can think of many absurd, but technically true examples of things that this ethereal "government" entity might want, but that it would be practically incapable of legally using force to obtain. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:59:00] - Vinnie: Gosh, I don't remember what I was saying. I think my point was that even if the government gave the power to every citizen to legally murder, they could always take it away. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:59:00] - paul: Bohr's atomic model states that theoretically a turtleneck sweater can stop a bullet fired at close range. That makes your gun just as worthless as the government. - aaron
[2004-05-19 09:59:00] - Paul: the problem is that you're being too general with "what it wants." - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:58:00] - If I say "I can buy a computer". That is practically true. It doesn't mean that I can buy every computer on the planet every day. That would be practically false (although theoretically true). -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:58:00] - Paul: but the problem is that "the government as a whole" is not a defined entity. It is composed of individual people, who would disagree about both "what the government wants" and "whether that thing should be made illegal". - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:57:00] - Pierce: I never said that it never will either. The government can, and sometimes does, but not always, kill people to get what it wants. Practically true, and definitely within the bounds of the statement. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:57:00] - the one where you said the people rely on the government to give them the power, while government gives itself power. that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the original statement... - vinnie
[2004-05-19 09:56:00] - Pierce: I don't see that as a problem why my argument at all, although I think that is where you guys are tripping up. The statement doesn't say that any random government official can kill whoever they want. It's talking about the government as a whole. (Where did that statement come from, anyway?) -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:56:00] - Paul: if it "can", but never "will", then you're back to arguing theoretical truths which are practically false. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:55:00] - dave: i don't think aphrodite exactly "gave" helen to paris. he did choose aphrodite as the most beautiful goddess so his prize was helen, but he still took his ship to greece and took her - travis
[2004-05-19 09:55:00] - Paul: okay, take my previous statement and change "murder" into "murder of all citizens", since that practically applies to your original claim. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:55:00] - Vinnie: I have no idea what last statement you are talking about.
-Paul[2004-05-19 09:54:00] - It doesn't say the government should or will kill people to get what it wants. Just that it's the only entity that CAN do it legally for anything. -paul
[2004-05-19 09:54:00] - we're just talking about theoreticals - vinnie
[2004-05-19 09:54:00] - Paul: the major practical problem with your argument is that it assumes the government as a single mind. Which is fundamentally not true. So murder would never be made legal, because there are too many potential dissenting voices for it to gain sufficient real support. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:54:00] - paul: your last sentence to me doesn't affect the original statement. just as the government can legally change the law to allow themselves to murder, they could legally change the law to give everyone that right - vinnie
[2004-05-19 09:53:00] - Pierce: Well, I don't know if the first has anything to do with anything. The second is somewhat related, but you're stretching the meaning of the statement. It said nothing about killing ALL citizens. Just that the government is the only entity that can legally kill citizens to get whatever it wants. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:51:00] - Paul: take your pick. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:51:00] - Pierce: You mean make it legal for citizens to murder? Or make it legal for the government to murder all citizens? -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:50:00] - Pierce: yeah, actually, I can see a pretty good argument for why saying that statement is true justifies why the government should possess all weapons. -paul
[2004-05-19 09:50:00] - Paul: you don't think it's false in practice, then you need to argue that on a practical level. Explain to me the circumstance in which the government would be able to legalize murder for all citizens, in practicality. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:49:00] - I think it's just me uniting everyone against me. I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of debates were me vs. everyone. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:49:00] - Pierce: You can draw all sorts of conclusions from it. Maybe that people shouldn't be able to own guns because they have no legal use for them, or maybe that they SHOULD because they need protection from government. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:49:00] - Dave: yeah, I'm seeing it now that I'm looking for it. For some reason, all my memorable examples were of you arguing with me. I stand corrected. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:48:00] - Kidding, in case you can't tell. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:48:00] - Paul: what, exactly, does it justify about gun ownership? - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:48:00] - Dave: Stop bringing up random tangents!
-Paul[2004-05-19 09:48:00] - Pierce: I don't think it is false in practice. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:48:00] - pierce: as a random tangent - this is an example of where I find myself supporting the same viewpoint as you. I feel like it happens a lot for some reason -dave
[2004-05-19 09:48:00] - And you're not giving any examples of how it has any value in a practical world. I brought up anarcho-capitalism because that is usually what you're trying to prove when you complain about the government. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:47:00] - Pierce: Ok, then if you concede that only the government has the legal right to use force to kill people, then it justifies something about gun ownership. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:47:00] - Paul: we're arguing with you because, while we admit that your statement is technically, theoretically true, its truth is meaningless because it is false in practice. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:46:00] - paul: ahh ok. well then I will stop discussing it. -dave
[2004-05-19 09:46:00] - Dave: It was a quick joking aside, I'm sorry for making a single statement that didn't directly relate.
-Paul[2004-05-19 09:46:00] - -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:46:00] - Dave: No, I'm trying not to do that at all. I feel like it's you guys who are going off on tangents here. All I wanted to do is say the statement was true. You guys keep asking me to argue random (meaningless) points, IMHO.
[2004-05-19 09:45:00] - paul: but whether it is ironic at all has not immediate bearing on the current discussion. hence the appearance that you are diverting the discussion -dave
[2004-05-19 09:45:00] - The theoretical argument about social contracts (more or less) determines the practical justification for establishing government. There's your functional value. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:45:00] - Dave: Nothing, beyond the fact that I believe Pierce was defending what he considers to be an 'empty' statement yesterday so I find it ironic he's criticizing me for doing it here. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:44:00] - Paul: because if you concede that "breaking a law is wrong", then it justifies the use of force (after due process, yada yada) in an attempt to enforce that law. Which is the essential basis of government. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:44:00] - paul: it may not be intentional, but from the posts it seems like you're diverting the discussion to tangents -dave
[2004-05-19 09:43:00] - Pierce: n/m I see it now. I argue that the same logic can be applied to what I'm saying then. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:43:00] - Paul: actually, our government ostensibly recognizes that we have our rights whether the government gives them to us or not... they are inherent. What the government gives us is the practical ability to exercise our inherent rights. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:43:00] - paul: what does that previous discussion have to do with this one? -dave
[2004-05-19 09:43:00] - Pierce: What's the practical applicability of whether breaking a law is wrong? -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:42:00] - Dave: I'm not getting hung up on it, and he didn't abandon it. He's still trying to get me to draw connections to it. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:42:00] - Paul: what is the functional value of your claim, then. "It's something people don't think of" isn't a function, you need to be more specific. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:42:00] - paul: the statement does have some value, conceptual value in explaining the point to someong. Functional value is different, because it can't practically happen. -dave
[2004-05-19 09:41:00] - Vinnie: The government could give people the right to do whatever they want, but people having the right to do whatever they want is contingent on some other power (the government) giving them that right. Not so with the government's right. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:41:00] - Furthermore, the "social contract" theory I described yesterday is part of the philosophy behind the establishment of a government in the first place, and therefore it does have practical applications that you can definitively draw from its theoretical nature. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:40:00] - paul: stop getting hung up on the anarcho-capitalism. you missed what he was trying to say with it, so he abandoned it -dave
[2004-05-19 09:40:00] - Pierce: Actually, you're the one that's trying to change the subject by making me draw some sort of meaningless connection with anarcho capitalism. I don't see the point of drawing a connection and I also do not concede that the statement is functionally valueless because it's something that many people don't think of. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:39:00] - Paul: the discussion yesterday was about moral correctness, which is inherently a conceptual topic. Your point today has no value except in application to the real, tangible behaviors of a government. Therefore it needs to be practically applicable. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:39:00] - paul: pierce is just saying that you principle, or theoretical statement, is not practical at all, and hence is valueless -dave
[2004-05-19 09:38:00] - paul: but the usefulness of any principle is grounded in practicalities. Like communism as travis said earlier, theoretically it's great, practically, it stinks -dave
[2004-05-19 09:38:00] - Paul: but if a principle has no practical application, then it's valueless. We've all conceded your point on the level of principle, but you continue to claim that we're saying it's false (on that level) - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:38:00] - paul: oh? i thought the point you were arguing was that the government could do these things but not immediately - vinnie
[2004-05-19 09:38:00] - Pierce: I'm not trying to change the subject (in fact, I thought you guys wanted me to). I'm just saying that I find it hypocritical for you to criticize the emptiness of my statement when you were doing the same thing yesterday. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:37:00] - Dave: But this wasn't a discussion about practicalities at all. We were talking about a general statement of principle, you can't really argue that on practicalities. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:37:00] - Paul: don't change the subject. Attempt to draw a (functional) conclusion with your point, or concede that it's functionally valueless. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:36:00] - Vinnie: I think the statement was in relation to our current situation. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:36:00] - Paul: and because you refuse to draw any conclusions (the obvious one being that anarcho-capitalism would solve this "problem" somehow), we're left simply pointing out the emptiness of your statement. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:36:00] - paul: again, your view of the theoretical or idealistic vs. the practical comes into play. That was my whole point with the deposing the govt. point. Technically, you could probably depose the whole executive branch in a week. Practically, it's impossible, so it doesn't really have any bearing -dave
[2004-05-19 09:35:00] - Pierce: This coming from the person who was trying to argue that breaking the law was wrong because breaking the law is wrong.
-Paul[2004-05-19 09:35:00] - Paul: because it is meaningless. Practicality goes against any conclusions you would draw from your technically true claim. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:35:00] - funnily enough, I don't think I agree. the government could theoretically give everyone the power to legally use force to take what they want. but that seems even less likely than paul's scenario - vinnie
[2004-05-19 09:34:00] - Adrian conceded your point too, Paul, IIRC. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:34:00] - Pierce + Dave: Right, but I don't see why it's "technically" true but not entirely true. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:34:00] - Paul: no, I think it's true; just that it's meaningless. Water is technically wet. Yes, that's true by definition. Does it hold any value as a point? No. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:34:00] - paul: you should read more carefully, he said it several times I believe -dave
[2004-05-19 09:33:00] - Vinnie: Exactly! That's what I've been up against here.
-Paul[2004-05-19 09:33:00] - paul: adrian isn't posting at the moment. and pierce stated several times that your point was technically true -dave
[2004-05-19 09:33:00] - "I concede that it may be theoretically (but not practically) true... - pierce" - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:33:00] - Dave: Adrian and Pierce, I thought, disagreed. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:33:00] - paul: propose a better system. THEN I'll admit your point is true
- vinnie[2004-05-19 09:33:00] - Dave: "Technically" true means that you don't really think it's true though.
-Paul[2004-05-19 09:33:00] - paul: what people? -dave
[2004-05-19 09:32:00] - Dave: No, they haven't, as far as I can tell. Both people who disagreed with it haven't agreed that it's true yet. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:32:00] - paul: both pierce and I have stated several times that your point is technically true -dave
[2004-05-19 09:31:00] - Dave: I think it does apply to people on this board, evidenced by the fact that at least two people disagreed with the statement. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:31:00] - paul: the problem is that everyone has already admitted it to be true, and you are still trying to get people to admit it -dave
[2004-05-19 09:31:00] - you guys are funny
- vinnie[2004-05-19 09:31:00] - Pierce: I'm not trying to prove ANYTHING with that claim other than that it is true. That has been what I'm trying to do this entire time. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:31:00] - paul: I don't think the military is technically part of the govt. -dave
[2004-05-19 09:30:00] - Vinnie: I don't understand the argument either, quite frankly. I'm just trying to get people to admit that someting is true and Pierce keeps trying to tell me anarcho capitalism doesn't work.
-Paul[2004-05-19 09:30:00] - vinnie: no he's not talking about likelihood. he's talking about something being theoretically possible -dave
[2004-05-19 09:29:00] - and I mean, murder for everyone, not just the government - vinnie
[2004-05-19 09:29:00] - paul: the thing is, I don't think that really applies to many people on this board. I think we all realize that the govt. creates the laws it has to follow -dave
[2004-05-19 09:29:00] - Paul: but what are you trying to prove with that claim? I concede that it may be theoretically (but not practically) true, but that it is functionally a valueless statement. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:29:00] - I don't understand the argument here. government makes the laws, so couldn't the law be changed to make murder legal as well? or are we talking about likelihood? - vinnie
[2004-05-19 09:28:00] - Dave: Even then, I'm not so sure the public could depose judges. And what about military officers, are they government officials? -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:28:00] - Pierce: I think you're finally catching onto my point. When the government makes rules governing it's own behavior, those rules are meaningless because they can always legally break those rules whenever they want. The claim, wasn't supposed to be some leap of logic, but instead a reminder of something many people forget. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:27:00] - paul: besides, the "day" part of the statement doesn't have to be there. You could say "the US public can depose every single govt. official in one week" -dave
[2004-05-19 09:26:00] - paul: why not? I doubt there are time limits on anything. Practically it would be impossible yes, but theoretically it might be able to happen -dave
[2004-05-19 09:25:00] - Dave: Not in a single day. -Paul
[2004-05-19 09:25:00] - Paul: but if it's something that's theoretically true, but practically impossible (for all intents and purposes), then your claim is empty. Like saying water is wet. - pierce
[2004-05-19 09:23:00] - paul: heck, you could get people to declare any official medically unfit to serve, that would oust them right away -dave
[2004-05-19 09:23:00] - Pierce: I claim that the statement that I've already typed enough is true. It doesn't necessarily mean that it can do it immediately, I don't think. -Paul
prev <-> next