Punch the guy who viciously insults your partner.

[MaineShark]

Wishful nonsense and a refusal to accept reality as is. Drawing a line between two things does not make it universally true. "Wrong," is not and should not be defined by one sentence. It is determined by context, surrounding culture, who is involved, emotion (yes emotion, it matters, get over it), and, as I said, and infinite amount of other factors.

Based upon what you just claimed, it is literally impossible for there to be anything that is wrong.  If there are infinite other factors, then there is no possible way to examine them all, and nothing at all - no matter how heinous - can ever be wrong.  With infinite factors, there's always one you have not considered.

Determining what is right and wrong in every situation morally is like trying to the same thing economically. You simply can not centrally plan morality and its rules. Won't work.

Really?  That's an interesting claim.  So, an economic rule like, "profit is income, less expenses," is "central planning" in your world?

No, that's just the definition of the thing.  Central planning occurs when some central tries to tell you what to do with that.  The NAP is not even vaguely comparable to central economic planning - it's a definition.

You can be insistent all you want on the internet but chances are if you actually tried, you'd know that you've witnessed more than one event where violence was initiated and you knew it was the right thing.

No, I haven't.  Nor can I even think of an example.  Nor has anyone else ever presented an example.

If someone is running on a track and you're walking on the inside lane, and they yell "Track!" it's generally recognized that faster people get the inside lane and you should move when you hear that. But there is no actual rule that says so on most tracks. Your refusal to move, whether ignorant or knowledgeable of this unwritten rule, does not make their running at you violence. If they are at full sprint on a curve and can't move or slow down, it's not violence on your behalf because they had no choice but to run into you. Potentially, but not necessarily a dick move. There are too many factors to consider that you could pull apart all  day, but that's exactly why you're wrong.

No, intentionally running into someone is violent.  End of story.  "He should have known" is not an excuse for violent behavior.  That's victim-blaming, like "she dressed sexy."

We can play the "if" game all day, but one-half decent example on my side proves you wrong.

Too bad you haven't presented one...

You're the one trying to prove a universal and it's already clear you can't.

Clear to whom, exactly?  By the way, "there is nothing so evil that it cannot sometimes be righteous in certain contexts" is also a universal statement.  Which I'm rather certain that you cannot possibly prove.  Human nature being what it is, there are plenty of examples of truly-heinous evils that have been committed.  Do you really think you can come up with "context" that would justify each of them?

...and also a thrown rock is a physical threat. A verbal threat is not a physical threat nor does it force you to act.

It certainly does.  Even if you do not alter your behavior, it has changed the nature of your behavior.  If someone convinces you that he will kill you if you walk 100 yards down the street, you may be obstinate and choose to keep walking, but he has changed the nature of your act from "walking down the street, minding my own business" into "walking to my death."

A life threat over the internet is generally dismissed entirely and not taken with seriousness.

So, it's not a credible threat, then.  Ergo, it is not violent.

I'd suggest listening to the video starting from 37:17 to see how many additional rules to "threat" a few people HAD to add in order to try and make themselves right in saying it is always OK to answer a deadly threat with deadly force. Spoiler: No universals were found. If Chris Cantwell threatened to kill me, I'd laugh, if he threatened to kill Ghraham Colson, he'd be afraid. Neither one of us is incorrect. This is subjectivity. The level of threat is determined by the fear of the individual by the individual, not principle. (18:18) It seems most people would not take Ghraham Colson's fear seriously and thus their subjectivity would bar any action from being taken. The results of crying wolf I suppose, but it's subjectivity interfering with subjectivity.

No, that's not subjectivity.  That's credibility.  Communication is a two-way street.  If Cantwell threatened you, he would know that you don't take it seriously, so it would not be a credible threat.  If he threatened Colson, he would know that Colson does take it seriously, so it would be a credible threat.

[jerryswife]

OK, I guess I am ignorant, what does SFK stand for?  If you are going to use intials please give those of us not in the know a clue.  Thank you.  I do know what FSP and NAP are.

[MaineShark]

OK, I guess I am ignorant, what does SFK stand for?  If you are going to use intials please give those of us not in the know a clue.  Thank you.  I do know what FSP and NAP are.

"Stop Free Keene" - a group of anti-liberty malcontents in Keene.  Or, as Jay noted, a very few who just don't like some particular action that has been associated with Free Keene.  But most are rabid and unstable nutcases with all the charm of Klansmen.

[Jay]

OK, I guess I am ignorant, what does SFK stand for?  If you are going to use intials please give those of us not in the know a clue.  Thank you.  I do know what FSP and NAP are.

St0p Free K33ne, which runs a website and Facebook Group (I'm purposefully obfuscating their links below so they don't show up in search engines):

Website

Facebook Group

[K neth]

... it is literally impossible for there to be anything that is wrong.  If there are infinite other factors, then there is no possible way to examine them all, and nothing at all - no matter how heinous - can ever be wrong.  With infinite factors, there's always one you have not considered.

I think you nailed it there, about as well as you can with words. 

How about replacing 'wrong' with "known for sure to be wrong"?  And with infinite factors and a weeny human brain, there's always more than one factor not considered, there are infinite factors not considered.

It is literally impossible for there to be anything that is known for sure to be wrong.  If there are infinite other factors, then there is no possible way to examine them all, and nothing at all - no matter how heinous - can ever be known for sure to be wrong.  With infinite factors, there's always infinite factors you have not considered.

I can suspect, discern, judge, deduce, and examine critically with my weeny human brain, but I can't really know for sure.

I was enslaved by the trap of discerning errors in my neighbors actions, based on limited perception, and righteously standing in judgement over them as if I were all knowing.  A real freedom came from giving up such ridiculous discernment.

[Jay]

I was enslaved by the trap of discerning errors in my neighbors actions, based on limited perception, and righteously standing in judgement over them as if I were all knowing.  A real freedom came from giving up such ridiculous discernment.

That's some good stuff right there.

[eglove]

... it is literally impossible for there to be anything that is wrong.  If there are infinite other factors, then there is no possible way to examine them all, and nothing at all - no matter how heinous - can ever be wrong.  With infinite factors, there's always one you have not considered.

I think you nailed it there, about as well as you can with words. 

How about replacing 'wrong' with "known for sure to be wrong"?

Doesn't really matter does it? He already admitted there's no such thing as a universal ethic. Now we're just nitpicking over words so the conversation as at an end. Any further arguments are just a desperate attempt to be right at something. There is value is passing judgement through something like a jury and basing decisions off past cases. Even without a formal court system we have always crowdsourced law and justice to the community. Sometimes you personally may think the decision was wrong, another might disagree. Yes, right and wrong is often an opinion. Infinite factors does NOT imply impossible to judge, although sometimes it does. Falling head over heels for a strawman doesn't make anything correct. Again, assuming you know what to be right because NAP, or because "my opinion/personal principle" is wholly retarded.

BTW, Amazon makes no profit. Don't give me your stupid "universal" economic opinions either.

[eglove]

No, intentionally running into someone is violent.  End of story.  "He should have known" is not an excuse for violent behavior.  That's victim-blaming, like "she dressed sexy."

The person walking is the one who did it intentionally. Keep up dingo.

No, that's not subjectivity.  That's credibility.  Communication is a two-way street.  If Cantwell threatened you, he would know that you don't take it seriously, so it would not be a credible threat.  If he threatened Colson, he would know that Colson does take it seriously, so it would be a credible threat.

Says you, it's your subjective opinion claiming to know what Cantwell knows.

[MaineShark]

Doesn't really matter does it? He already admitted there's no such thing as a universal ethic.

No, I didn't.  I referenced your claim that there is not.

No, intentionally running into someone is violent.  End of story.  "He should have known" is not an excuse for violent behavior.  That's victim-blaming, like "she dressed sexy."

The person walking is the one who did it intentionally. Keep up dingo.

Not in the example you gave.  You stated that someone was walking, and someone else ran into him from behind.  That was an intentional act on the runner's part.

So, "try to keep up."  Particularly when it's your own example.

No, that's not subjectivity.  That's credibility.  Communication is a two-way street.  If Cantwell threatened you, he would know that you don't take it seriously, so it would not be a credible threat.  If he threatened Colson, he would know that Colson does take it seriously, so it would be a credible threat.

Says you, it's your subjective opinion claiming to know what Cantwell knows.

No, it's not.  I don't need to make a subjective judgment, because the example is based upon this public posting.

Nor would it matter.  Making a subjective judgment as to the facts of the case does not change the objective standard used to judge those facts.

"All chickens are birds" is an objective standard.  "This critter right here is a chicken" is subjective, dependent upon the observer's skill at determining the species of a given animal.  The subjective skill level of the observer does not change the objective standard; it merely impacts how well that standard can be applied in the real world.

[eglove]

"My ethics are universal, just not in real life." -MaineShark

If you can't even read what's being said, don't respond.

[MaineShark]

"My ethics are universal, just not in real life." -MaineShark

If you can't even read what's being said, don't respond.

If you can't post without lying, don't bother to post.

[Jay]

Something something libertarians arguing on the internet...

Must be winter.

[Tom Sawyer]

Jerryswife comes in and starts trouble. Wait a minute I'm a troublemaker she's not.

eglove has stepped into the Maineshark zone I'll let Joe chew on him for a while. I say eglove makes some good points, but the mouth noise angle is still ridiculous. 

As to the viciously insulting person...
The dominance game is what mouthy people are often trying to pull. I've been messing with our son to help teach him to verbally respond and hopefully prevent the need to use physical force to put them back in to their place. A well placed putdown in front of the group can often take the wind out of the bully's sails.

[eglove]

Jerryswife comes in and starts trouble. Wait a minute I'm a troublemaker she's not.

eglove has stepped into the Maineshark zone I'll let Joe chew on him for a while. I say eglove makes some good points, but the mouth noise angle is still ridiculous. 

As to the viciously insulting person...
The dominance game is what mouthy people are often trying to pull. I've been messing with our son to help teach him to verbally respond and hopefully prevent the need to use physical force to put them back in to their place. A well placed putdown in front of the group can often take the wind out of the bully's sails.

That's really specific and hopeful. Plan for the best scenario, one-day things don't go that way. I once got in a fight doing that very same thing. Welcome to reality.

The fact that we disagree about what's right and wrong in different situations only proves the point that there is no universal ethic. The more MaineShark struggles with his dyslexia, the more he digs into the nitpicking, the more wrong he his. Anybody who acts like they have all the answers has some serious ego issues to deal with.

[eglove]

How these arguments tend to go, from an example in the video:

Rich: "Is there a way to implicitly consent to a dual?"
Matt/Mike: "No."
Me: "If someone stays in your face and keeps dogging you..."
Matt: "That's a different thing. We need to set parameters..."

Thus the "fingertip length proximity amendment" was added to the NAP, which does not cover such cases. The hypocrisy is lost on those too arrogant to believe that their imaginary ethics in their heads could ever possibly NOT cover a particular situation.

Rich: "The non-initiation of force is not a sufficient life philosophy. ...It answers only one question, at what point do you use violence?"
Mike: "It doesn't even answer that very explicitly. ...some of these lines can be blurry in real life." (Mike being one of the two who said no to the question of implicit duals.)

Rich: "If I'm in a David and Goliath situation... I might be more apt to take the initiative [initiate violence]."
Matt: "Is he making his way towards you? If he's clearly becoming a threat, I'm going to meet him half way." (Just agreed to a situation of an implicit agreement to a dual.)

You can tell me how you imagine yourself to be perfect and how your pretty little rules make your decisions the right thing all the time every time all you want. And I'm going to call you a liar. Meet a guy half way, throw the first punch on Goliath, push a guy who gets too close and you're not a bad person. Nor did any of those "threats violate the NAP." Those are childish excuses, amendments to a one sentence principle, to try and make yourself look better than you are... even though there was no problem to begin with.

Rich: "Answering a deadly threat with deadly force is certainly, I would say we would all agree with; that's your right."
Me: "What if it's on the internet?"
Rich: "Huh?"
Me: "What if the threat comes over the internet?"
Matt: "Again, it's words." Really? Because they were words before they were on the internet too.
Melanie: [Proximity argument.]
Rich: [Well if *I* believe it...]

Me: "[Fighting] can't be dealt with on a universal basis, it has to be dealt with by [locals, property owners, witnesses, victims, etc.] rather than some monopolized court system, or you HAVE to fall under the non-aggression principle. It's not my business to say how every situation (even if the same thing happened) should be handled."