Just How Stupid Are We?

[moda0306]

Gumby,

That is a awesome Wiki link.  I know Kshartle hates outside sources of ideas, but these few paragraphs that challenges the NAP were perfect:

Critics point out that almost every patch of land on Earth was stolen (i.e. obtained through initiation of force) at some point in its history. The stolen land was later inherited or sold until it reached its present owners. Thus, property over land and natural resources is based on the initiation of force. Among those who make this argument, some claim that private property over natural resources is unique in being based on the initiation of force, while others hold that, by extension, private property over all goods derives from violence, because natural resources are required in the production of all goods.[citation needed]

Some supporters respond with the "water under the bridge" argument: transgressions of the past cannot all be rectified, and that an act of theft which happened long ago can reasonably be ignored. Critics argue that this implies that peaceful possession of property in the present legitimizes theft and/or trespass in the past. This requires a "cutoff" point: a point in time when illegitimate property becomes legitimate property. Some critics argue that any such point is arbitrary. Some supporters respond that property can only have a legal owner as long as there are no conflicting ownership claims to that property. The “cutoff”? point, therefore, is when the owners whose property has been stolen drop their claim because property that has no ownership claims at all is free for anyone to homestead.[citation needed]

Many libertarians support the idea that only labor creates ownership (see the labor theory of property). Some hold the position that land and all natural resources are not man-made and therefore cannot be owned. Others believe the community is the owner and that people should pay rent to the community for land they use (see Georgism). The homestead principle allows land and other natural resources to be privately owned.

Political theorist Hillel Steiner emphasizes that all things made come from natural resources and that the validity of any rights to those made things depends on the validity of the rights to the natural resources.[75] If land was stolen then anyone buying produce from that land would not be the legitimate owner of the goods. Also, if natural resources cannot be privately owned but are, and always will be, the property of all of mankind then NAP would be violated if such a resource would be used without everybody’s consent (see the Lockean proviso and free-market anarchism).[76] Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long points out that, as natural resources are required not only for the production of goods but for the production of the human body as well, the very concept of self-ownership can only exist if the land itself is privately owned.[77]

[Gumby]

That is a awesome Wiki link.  I know Kshartle hates outside sources of ideas, but these few paragraphs that challenges the NAP were perfect

I had a similar thought. Maybe we can all just look at the NAP and say... it's a nice idea, but it too has its flaws.

[Pointedstick]

Yes. It's about standards. I lived in a primitive African village where there was no trash because people had pride in their community and respect for the land they lived on. 50 miles away, you could find a crime-ridden slum with garbage strewn about everywhere. The character of the people in these two communities was a night-and-day difference.

I apologize for the somewhat off-topic question, but what African country did you live in?

The Ivory Coast. Under various forms of new management for the last 14 years.

[Gumby]

Does anybody really think that Springfield, Illinois doesn't need agreed-upon codes to function? I think it does.

Gumby, please tell me you don't live in Springfield, IL. 

That's the little city I grew up in, by the way.  I haven't been there in a long, long time.

Nope... I just chose it to honor the Simpsons (Though, I know they aren't from that Springfield).

[Xan]

Critics point out that almost every patch of land on Earth was stolen (i.e. obtained through initiation of force) at some point in its history. The stolen land was later inherited or sold until it reached its present owners. Thus, property over land and natural resources is based on the initiation of force. Among those who make this argument, some claim that private property over natural resources is unique in being based on the initiation of force, while others hold that, by extension, private property over all goods derives from violence, because natural resources are required in the production of all goods.[citation needed]

Some supporters respond with the "water under the bridge" argument: transgressions of the past cannot all be rectified, and that an act of theft which happened long ago can reasonably be ignored. Critics argue that this implies that peaceful possession of property in the present legitimizes theft and/or trespass in the past. This requires a "cutoff" point: a point in time when illegitimate property becomes legitimate property. Some critics argue that any such point is arbitrary. Some supporters respond that property can only have a legal owner as long as there are no conflicting ownership claims to that property. The “cutoff”? point, therefore, is when the owners whose property has been stolen drop their claim because property that has no ownership claims at all is free for anyone to homestead.[citation needed]

Many libertarians support the idea that only labor creates ownership (see the labor theory of property). Some hold the position that land and all natural resources are not man-made and therefore cannot be owned. Others believe the community is the owner and that people should pay rent to the community for land they use (see Georgism). The homestead principle allows land and other natural resources to be privately owned.

Political theorist Hillel Steiner emphasizes that all things made come from natural resources and that the validity of any rights to those made things depends on the validity of the rights to the natural resources.[75] If land was stolen then anyone buying produce from that land would not be the legitimate owner of the goods. Also, if natural resources cannot be privately owned but are, and always will be, the property of all of mankind then NAP would be violated if such a resource would be used without everybody’s consent (see the Lockean proviso and free-market anarchism).[76] Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long points out that, as natural resources are required not only for the production of goods but for the production of the human body as well, the very concept of self-ownership can only exist if the land itself is privately owned.[77]

This makes it quite clear that there can never be a One True Way to define ownership which all reasonable people agree to, and that arguing that such a thing is possible is a complete waste of time.

[moda0306]

Critics point out that almost every patch of land on Earth was stolen (i.e. obtained through initiation of force) at some point in its history. The stolen land was later inherited or sold until it reached its present owners. Thus, property over land and natural resources is based on the initiation of force. Among those who make this argument, some claim that private property over natural resources is unique in being based on the initiation of force, while others hold that, by extension, private property over all goods derives from violence, because natural resources are required in the production of all goods.[citation needed]

Some supporters respond with the "water under the bridge" argument: transgressions of the past cannot all be rectified, and that an act of theft which happened long ago can reasonably be ignored. Critics argue that this implies that peaceful possession of property in the present legitimizes theft and/or trespass in the past. This requires a "cutoff" point: a point in time when illegitimate property becomes legitimate property. Some critics argue that any such point is arbitrary. Some supporters respond that property can only have a legal owner as long as there are no conflicting ownership claims to that property. The “cutoff”? point, therefore, is when the owners whose property has been stolen drop their claim because property that has no ownership claims at all is free for anyone to homestead.[citation needed]

Many libertarians support the idea that only labor creates ownership (see the labor theory of property). Some hold the position that land and all natural resources are not man-made and therefore cannot be owned. Others believe the community is the owner and that people should pay rent to the community for land they use (see Georgism). The homestead principle allows land and other natural resources to be privately owned.

Political theorist Hillel Steiner emphasizes that all things made come from natural resources and that the validity of any rights to those made things depends on the validity of the rights to the natural resources.[75] If land was stolen then anyone buying produce from that land would not be the legitimate owner of the goods. Also, if natural resources cannot be privately owned but are, and always will be, the property of all of mankind then NAP would be violated if such a resource would be used without everybody’s consent (see the Lockean proviso and free-market anarchism).[76] Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long points out that, as natural resources are required not only for the production of goods but for the production of the human body as well, the very concept of self-ownership can only exist if the land itself is privately owned.[77]

This makes it quite clear that there can never be a One True Way to define ownership which all reasonable people agree to, and that arguing that such a thing is possible is a complete waste of time.

If rents are truly due on all land and real resources, I wonder what kind of citizen's dividend that would generate.

[Mountaineer]

This property discussion is interesting, even if unsolvable as so many of the various points raised in this thread seem valid by human standards. 

For me, it is much simpler as I am a believer (see religion thread).  So, I believe everything is a gift from God, or in other words, humans "own" nothing - it all belongs to God.  I try to have a responsible stewardship over the gifts He as seen fit to put in my care (e.g. family, material goods, health, intelligence, etc.).  I am daily thankful the whole time I have those gifts but when some of them go away, I try to focus on the idea they were never mine to begin with.  Does that work perfectly?  Absolutely not because I'm a sinful human and "want my share" even though I know better, but my belief does help.  And, I would (hopefully ethically and in line with God's Law) "defend" keeping those gifts as long as possible.  Since I know that I'm a hopeless sinner and deserving of nothing, I just repent and ask for God's mercy; I'm sure that my humanly actions are not and will not be perfect - and, I know that I am forgiven for Christ's sake.

... Mountaineer 

[Kshartle]

Let's say that PS's son is not 18 months, but 4 years old.  But he isn't toilet trained.  But the son strongly objects to his parents using physical force to compel him to change his clothes/diaper.  He strongly objects.  What do you do?

Or let's say that you have have 4 y/o who is playing at a park playing in a little puddle of water.  He isn't disturbing anyone else, but he is getting pretty wet.  You wish that your son would quit playing in the water because (i) you need to leave,  (ii) you would prefer your son not get into the car all wet and (iii) other parents at the park are looking at you disapprovingly because their kids are afraid to approach him.  You tell your son it is time to leave, but he objects.  What do you do?

So let me preface again with saying I am not a parent. I helped my sister (single-mom) raise my nephew here in Florida from 18 months to 5 yrs with no other family help. My best friend has a very active 3 yr old and 1 yr old. I have experienced unruly kids who don't want to be changed or leave the park, but not everyday.

That probably helps me to be more patient, not having to face it daily.

That being said.....when a parent changes a diaper or clothes on a fussy kid, or takes them home from the park when the kids don't want to go....this is not "impossing the parent's will". Yes this is what the parent wants to have happen so it's easy to look at it this way, but the nature of their relationship makes it something different.

The parent has a contract with the kid, and with the rest of society to care for the child and be responsible for the child. That contract was formed by estoppel when the parent takes the baby home from the hospital or whatever. I might not be using the correct legal term, perhaps it's best to say there is a de facto contract.

The child is helpless and requires a caretaker. If you misstreat and abuse the child you create a monster that will affect others so you have a responsibility to them also that you are not going to do this.

This is different from the nonsensical "social contract" by which everyone everyone is enslaved to everyone else by fact of birth rather than their own actions and declarations through taking the child home.

Kids need their diapers and clothes changed. They can't stay and play at the park forever. They can't eat candy for every meal. Not recognizing this is to abuse the child and breaks your contracts.

Now is better if you can sit and reason with the child and teach them negotiation and voluntary acceptence of what you need to do to care for them? Of course it is. It's also impossible. But let's be clear. No child is abused because you change their clothes or take them home from the park when it's time to go. They are not going to be psychologicaly damaged from this if you refrain from screaming and hitting them and shower them with a loving and supportive non-violent home.

If the NAP meant you couldn't pick your kid up when they run into the raod it would be pretty worthless. Anyone with half a brain realizes this is not abuse and it's not "imposing your will" on the child. It executing your responsibility as the caretaker of a little human who is going to be irrational at times. With patience, love, non-violence, negotiation etc. you can build a person who is rationale and escapes all of the mental problems that some of us have and the adults around us do.

[Kshartle]

Here you are, Kshartle.

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... /#msg84501

Jesus Christ scroll up five where I explain to you why you cannot.

Completely dishonest Moda.

You know damn well my first sentence...directly at Rien and Tech when they say they would shun for doing it.....with a wink afterwards....means I was joking.

Completely dishonest way to have a conversation.

Kshartle,

I was talking about the part where you say that the dog is your property.  Not your winking joke.  If the dog is your property, you can do what you want with him.

Take a step back and realize you're the one that took my example to stating it was ok to kill puppies. 

Let's set the record that neither of us think it is right.  However, based on your logic that our ability to control our actions as being the source of our intrinsic moral value, and animals not having that trait, I'm not sure why in your mind that they do?  If dogs don't have RIGHTs, why is it WRONG, in your mind, to kill one?  If it is wrong, though, isn't factory farming wrong?  If we are to abandon violence, where do we draw the line with animals, as billions of them are subject to factory farming conditions daily.

I explained all this in the post. Simon gave the concept the correct name....stewardship. I'm not going to go over all these things that have already been gone over in previous threads, particularly when they take us off the current topic.

[Kshartle]

KShartle....

I'm trying to understand your position better. Would you say this Wikipedia article represents your position on violence accurately?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Non-aggression principle

I've never read much about the NAP but this is an excellent description. I might modify slightly but it's very close so no real need to.

Good summary wikipedia!

[Kshartle]

Gumby,

That is a awesome Wiki link.  I know Kshartle hates outside sources of ideas, but these few paragraphs that challenges the NAP were perfect:

Critics point out that almost every patch of land on Earth was stolen (i.e. obtained through initiation of force) at some point in its history. The stolen land was later inherited or sold until it reached its present owners. Thus, property over land and natural resources is based on the initiation of force. Among those who make this argument, some claim that private property over natural resources is unique in being based on the initiation of force, while others hold that, by extension, private property over all goods derives from violence, because natural resources are required in the production of all goods.[citation needed]

Some supporters respond with the "water under the bridge" argument: transgressions of the past cannot all be rectified, and that an act of theft which happened long ago can reasonably be ignored. Critics argue that this implies that peaceful possession of property in the present legitimizes theft and/or trespass in the past. This requires a "cutoff" point: a point in time when illegitimate property becomes legitimate property. Some critics argue that any such point is arbitrary. Some supporters respond that property can only have a legal owner as long as there are no conflicting ownership claims to that property. The “cutoff”? point, therefore, is when the owners whose property has been stolen drop their claim because property that has no ownership claims at all is free for anyone to homestead.[citation needed]

Many libertarians support the idea that only labor creates ownership (see the labor theory of property). Some hold the position that land and all natural resources are not man-made and therefore cannot be owned. Others believe the community is the owner and that people should pay rent to the community for land they use (see Georgism). The homestead principle allows land and other natural resources to be privately owned.

Political theorist Hillel Steiner emphasizes that all things made come from natural resources and that the validity of any rights to those made things depends on the validity of the rights to the natural resources.[75] If land was stolen then anyone buying produce from that land would not be the legitimate owner of the goods. Also, if natural resources cannot be privately owned but are, and always will be, the property of all of mankind then NAP would be violated if such a resource would be used without everybody’s consent (see the Lockean proviso and free-market anarchism).[76] Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long points out that, as natural resources are required not only for the production of goods but for the production of the human body as well, the very concept of self-ownership can only exist if the land itself is privately owned.[77]

You think these are the strongest arguments against NAP? 

Let me start with number 1 and see if I can get to the others today. It looks like a busy day ahead.

The first one is the classic two wrongs make a right fail. The so-called critics recoginize theft and aggression is wrong but then say to somehow reject it now would be to validate it in the past.

This is so utterly stupid i can't beleive anyone would be hoodwinked by it. No one is responsible for the murder or theft commited by someone in the past. To say that humans rejecting the idea that violence solves problems legitmizes violence.....I mean my God....it is the exact opposite. It is saying that the theft and murder of the past was wrong and we aren't going to repeat it. There is no magic button that will all of a sudden turn every violent human non-violent. Even if there was this would be a huge improvement for all.

We don't need to go back and have a court redistribute property. We only need people to keep learning that peaceful negotiation is the way to go. Absolute freedom for everyone will make humans much happier and propsperous than any court ruling that injustice in the past means property needs to be moved around.

You are fond of talking about native Americans. Do you think they and everyone else would be better off if the White man left the continent and invaded Europe, leaving everything here to them because 150 years ago their ancestors were driven onto reservations?

Would they be better off if people stopped using violence and theft and instead human action was based on voluntary consent and exchange of value?

It's obvious. Just like it's obvious this "citique" is total rubbish.

The second one is just the false belief that all natural resources belong to all people. We've tackled this one in several other threads. I'll see if I can muster the strength.

Does anyone actually have a good critique of the NAP after reading through it? When I say a good critique....can you actually make an argument for when it is morally acceptable to initiate force, fraud or theft against someone?

[Kshartle]

If rents are truly due on all land and real resources, I wonder what kind of citizen's dividend that would generate.

Where does this welfare fantasy come from where you dream about some people working and producing and you get a check based on their work?

This ridiculousness has failed anywhere it's put into practice.

Saying humans owe a tax to everyone else when they produce stuff just means we are all slaves to the collective. It destroys the incentive to produce and makes us all poorer.

This stuff has been tried. When they really get into it the guys with guns have to line the walls to keep people from fleeing and bombard them with propaganda to brainwash them so they don't see reality.

[Kshartle]

In saying that getting voluntary acceptance from a 4 year old is impossible, it certainly sounds to me that you condone violence toward children. So it sounds like you would physically restrain the 4 year old to change his diaper.  It sounds like you would drag the 4 year old from the park when it is time to leave.

This is violence.  This is imposing your will.

Again, I agree with what you wrote far upthread, before the "evil gubmint" distraction: that the best way to reduce violence in the world is to teach children not to be violent.  But IMO, doing violence toward children as you advocate teaches them that violence solves problems.

Wow.

First of all.....you can certainly get a 4 year old to voluntarily agree to stuff. You are lying.

Second of all.....changing their diaper when they resist is not violence. Claiming it is means you don't understand the concept or you're just lying.

Saying I advocate violence towards children because I say you should change their diaper, pick them up when they run out into the road and take them home from the park even when they are fighting you.....is just such nonsense.

It really says something about you that you would try and make this argument. You are one of those people that would argue they weren't getting wet while swimming in the ocean. You don't even care how ridiculous you sound. It's like you didn't even read what I wrote.

Next time you're at a friend's house and their kid is fussing about having their diaper changed please let them know they violently abusing their child.

This entire discussion is so stupid I can't continue it.

The answer to the subject line of this thread is obviously very much.

Guys, stop violently agressing against your kids when they play in the street.

[Gumby]

This entire discussion is so stupid I can't continue it.

This is what PS was talking about. Few people will respect what you have to say with that kind of attitude. Why can't the conversation just be congenial?

[Xan]

He's boxed himself into a corner.  He's so convinced that there exists one rational way to do absolutely everything, than whenever it gets pointed out that there isn't, he can't engage it.  He can't argue a position because his position is that everything is obvious and there can be no argument.

So all he can do is ignore, deride, laugh off, call names.  Really, if he did anything else he'd be admitting his position is asinine, and even though it obviously is, he's got too much invested in it now.

[Gumby]

He's boxed himself into a corner.

I agree. Still, my general point is that these conversations have become too argumentative and dismissive. Maybe I'm just in a weird mood today, but I wish the language we were all using was more congenial — the way PS was encouraging.

[Gumby]

For instance, I think we can all learn something things from the NAP or MR or Libertarianism or whatever, even if they are a little flawed... But we'll never have a good time here unless we all open our minds up a bit and prod each other to help each other understand the other's point of view — whether it's right or wrong. Like we were all having a beer together.

I think in order to do that, we need to each use language that makes us each look a little less sure of our entrenched positions. We can't all be right about everything. Acknowledging that is probably 90% of the battle.

If you look at PS's language, he makes it clear that he's just expressing an opinion that may or may not be right:

I just think that...

...And that's another reason why I think a non-government society would function better...

We all need to use more language like that. So, repeat after me...

"I think...[insert position here]"

Not this...

This entire discussion is so stupid I can't continue it.

[moda0306]

If rents are truly due on all land and real resources, I wonder what kind of citizen's dividend that would generate.

Where does this welfare fantasy come from where you dream about some people working and producing and you get a check based on their work?

This ridiculousness has failed anywhere it's put into practice.

Saying humans owe a tax to everyone else when they produce stuff just means we are all slaves to the collective. It destroys the incentive to produce and makes us all poorer.

This stuff has been tried. When they really get into it the guys with guns have to line the walls to keep people from fleeing and bombard them with propaganda to brainwash them so they don't see reality.

The rent isn't for other people's production, it's for the inherant value of the common property (land, resources, etc) that they're claiming exclusive use of.

Is this not clear?  I don't see how it isn't.  If it is, then you're just purpsefully being dense and throwing up straw men.  Simply put, built into the labor/creativity I add there is going to be some natural resource or common property used to produce wealth.  I didn't earn that. I may have improved it, but if I put a cherry on a sundae, do I deserve to sell that sundae as mine without paying for the sundae first?  No.  If nature made that sundae for us first, there is room for a lot of interpretations on who, if anyone, actually can claim ownership to that sundae.

This isn't some commie ideal of controlling all the means of production... it's assigning and distrubing the value of the common property that you want to FORCE the rest of us into accepting you have exclusive rights to.

If we have differing definitions of the moral connectors we've built to the world around us (property), as well as what qualifies as a entity (all humans?  Humans that control their actions?  Animals with measurable consciousness and moral compasses?) that deserves to have any sort of rights, then this has HUGE implications in how we engage in a NAP.

Could you imagine how much different "don't turn to violence" would look if we couldn't make arbitrary, exclusive claims on natural resources?  What if we can't take any action that would displace animals or grossly change the ecosystem?  What if we can't kill animals if they meet a certain threshhold of conscious or moral thought?  What if we can, but torturing them in our factory farm system is immoral?  What if we have no right to defend property by taking the life of another person, because the value of a human being trumps the value of our property?

These aren't just grey areas that are rare... they have HUGE implications in how we interact with each other and the world around us.  They have HUGE implications to the actions I take if I TRULY want to live by the NAP... if I truly want to "turn away from violence."  And nevermind the fact that everyone is going to think a bit differently about all this, which really complicates things as we all choose to "end the violence," and one elderly person stops eating meat and driving a polluting vehicle, and one of his neighbors that paid taxes for decades into that elderly person's pension decides to "take their property back" by going over to his house and taking "his property."

Now you can say my example is ridiculous, but you're not giving either of these people the logical tools to work with, backed by proper consistency, with which to establish what NAP really even means.

But I think Xan is right... unfortunately, you've put yourself into a logical corner that you're simply too invested in, you can't even convince most people that would otherwise want to agree with you, and you're just simply not going to argue in good faith. 



Gumby,

I agree, and I think there is a point to get at... Kshartle could be totally right about what HE thinks the role of violence and property should be.  He could be.  He just can't prove it, but he asserts that it HAS been proven... and these things have huge implications when you're asking people to "turn away from violence" and having us abandon government.

There really aren't many discussions here that fall into iron-clad deductive logic.  We all have to use all sorts of historical, operational, anecdotal, hypothetical, and analogical examples to help prove our point.  Complexity and lack of certainty are sure to be present.    These aren't deductive logic tool, but in the world of inductive logic, they all add to our case.

I mean sometimes we even have to site outside sources/explanations and ask questions... God forbit!

[Xan]

[
The rent isn't for other people's production, it's for the inherant value of the common property (land, resources, etc) that they're claiming exclusive use of.

Is this not clear?  I don't see how it isn't.  If it is, then you're just purpsefully being dense and throwing up straw men.  Simply put, built into the labor/creativity I add there is going to be some natural resource or common property used to produce wealth.  I didn't earn that. I may have improved it, but if I put a cherry on a sundae, do I deserve to sell that sundae as mine without paying for the sundae first?  No.  If nature made that sundae for us first, there is room for a lot of interpretations on who, if anyone, actually can claim ownership to that sundae.

This isn't some commie ideal of controlling all the means of production... it's assigning and distributing the value of the common property that you want to FORCE the rest of us into accepting you have exclusive rights to.

so who assigns this inherent value? if it is government and not a free market how are you not controlling the means of production? if some guy has the know-how and means to dig a lump of coal out of the ground at profit to himself (and the society that gets the energy from it) but the government comes along and says sorry, that natural resource belongs to the people (BTW just the people in that country or to the whole word? ) you must split the rewards of your labor, you have changed the value or cost of digging that coal up. You probably change it so much after government overhead for managing all this "community property", that the guy will say "why bother its not worth the trouble, why work hard for little or nothing when i can sit back and wait to get a share for nothing if somebody else digs it up"  it sounds like you want to FORCE producers into accepting that the product of their labor belongs to everybody by way of saying the lump of coal belongs to everybody.. given a choice between letting a free market determine the value of the property and the cost of putting the cherry on top and letting government do it i would choose the former ... with all the problems it may generate it is still more efficient, more fair and gets far better results than the latter...

Simonjester, that's quite a reasonable position to take, and you argue for it quite well.  And I think you're right: I probably wouldn't want to see society set up in that "rent" way.

Where the discussion goes off the rails is when one person starts claiming that his view is the ONLY view that a reasonable person could possibly hold.  I think the "rent" way would be bad, but I wouldn't say that anybody who thought otherwise was unreasonable.

[moda0306]

Simon,

You ask good questions that I want to get to... I don't have time, but I'd concur with most of what Xan is saying.  This is a great discussion that we could probably debate for decades without having One True Answer in our minds, much less agreement with each other.

In this world, "property" in your mind will always be "theft" in someone else's.

"Government" is on way to manage certain aspects of these decisions, but it's no more or less arbitrary than me claiming common property as my own, shooting tresspassers, possibly polluting, etc.  Government is just a series of agents tasked with setting these rules rather than each of us trying to set them for ourselves (and, implicit in that, everyone else).  Force is involved in either case.

What sucks is when your arguing with someone who thinks they have the One True Answer, or is trying to hold themselves on a moral pedestal by saying I advocate violence while they do not.

[Ad Orientem]

He's boxed himself into a corner.

I agree. Still, my general point is that these conversations have become too argumentative and dismissive. Maybe I'm just in a weird mood today, but I wish the language we were all using was more congenial — the way PS was encouraging.

+1

MT and PS set great examples.

It's sad, but I had to unsubscribe from my own thread somewhere back before page ten.

[MediumTex]

What is happening here?

The purpose of this forum is to share and discuss ideas.  The purpose isn't to make sure that everyone agrees with you.

Reasonable people can come to different conclusions about the nature of the world around them.  Just because someone sees things differently than you, though, it doesn't mean that it's necessary to be angry, frustrated or disrespectful toward them.

There is nothing easier than for people to be nasty to each other on an internet forum that discusses politics, religion, etc.  All it leads to, though, is the discussions ultimately being shut down and discussions of those topics are eventually no longer permitted.

Think about what a cool setup we have here: You can talk about anything you want, you can say more or less anything you want, and you can bounce ideas off of a bunch of really smart and interesting people with different perspectives. 

All I ask in exchange for hosting this party is for people to be civil and courteous toward one another.  Without that, it doesn't work.  Please be civil and courteous or don't post in these threads about controversial ideas.

[Gumby]

You are lying...you don't understand the concept or you're just lying...is just such nonsense...It really says something about you...You are one of those people...You don't even care how ridiculous you sound...It's like you didn't even read what I wrote...This entire discussion is so stupid I can't continue it.

Anyone else find it ironic that someone who vehemently advocates "non violence" seems to be very adept at verbal abuse?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse

Verbal abuse includes the following:

countering
withholding
discounting
abuse disguised as a joke
blocking and diverting
accusing and blaming
judging and criticizing
trivializing
undermining
threatening
name calling
chronic forgetting
ordering
denial of anger or abuse
abusive anger

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse

It's as if all that "non-violence" needs an outlet of some kind — and we are the targets.

The quote, above, was directed at a moderator. How much more of this can we take?

[Pointedstick]

When a thread accumulates 15 pages of posts in one day, there's probably a problem. And I think we all know what that problem is: Kshartle. He's not taking the hints, which are becoming increasingly more direct. The rest of us are interested in having thought-provoking discussions on a variety of subjects and he's interested in single-mindedly discussing the same topic over and over again--a topic he's convinced there is one single moral right answer to, and that he's got the right answer, making him the most moral person.

[l82start]

" be civil and courteous"
the above applies to how we respond to aggressive or abrasive posts as well as the posts themselves,

a certain amount of ending up at the same discussion over and over is bound to happen with any intelligent group, its natural to end up digging down to the core of the disagreement... and that's not a bad thing.... arguing past each other over details without understanding why or what is causing the disagreement would be boring and pointless..    the closer you get to those core ideas the tighter they tend to be held,  when we get to that point... be sensitive to those held by others and how you express your own. then the discussion can continue, as well as continue to be of interest and value...