Re: OT: Here we go again.
Roberto C. Sanchez <email@example.com>:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 07:57:26PM -0500, Curt Howland wrote:
> > Mr. Sanchez, it is now very clear one of the reasons these off-topic
> > postings have been going on so long: You are utterly ignorant of the
> > reality of politics.
> > Just because I consider it wrong to coerce others, in no way effects
> > the right of any being to effectively and violently defend itself
> > against those who _DO_ choose to use coercion.
> > Assuming a peaceful man is a pacifist is irrational. Didn't you ever
> > watch _Kung Fu_ as a kid?
> Right, and the section that you quoted included this phrase: "under
> any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being"
> To me, that disallows self-defense. If I get punched in the face and I
As in, _someone initiates force_ against you ...
> decide to realiate, then I have initiated force against my attacker.
Retaliation is not initiation. You are entirely within your rights to
defend yourself. You'd be a fool not to.
> Now, that is in response to his attack and so is in self-defense.
> However, I still have to initiate [something].
You may be initiating the courage to stand up against your attacker,
but that's something else altogether.
> idea of my political views. Can you cut me a break for an honest
Not when you continue to make them. Self-defence is not initiation of
IFF English isn't your mother tongue (I don't know), I'd happily cut
you slack for that. If so, this is merely a language based
misunderstanding. My expertise is sorely lacking in foreign language
skills, and I envy those (such as you?) who manage as well as they do
in this often ridiculous language. Many twenty-somethings who were
born into it do far worse these days.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling Linux Counter #80292
- - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Please, don't Cc: me.