Posted on 09/21/2003 6:25:48 PM PDT by cpforlife.org
Reminds me of Dr. McCoy asking Mr. Spock if he still had his soul after so many trips in the transporter. That wasn't in the TV series. I think it was in a novel called "Spock Must Die"
Shalom.
Two woids. Monica Lewinski!
Shalom.
Society would not be INITIATING FORCE.
They would be responding with defensive or punative force, against force INITIATED by the offender.
These words (like initiated for example) have meanings.
The language I am using in quite precise.
Actually, some of the happiest people I know are Amish.
Holy fear of knowledge isn't irrational. Irrational fear is.
Shalom.
Your intelligence is not served by such a broad brush comment.
Shalom.
All fear of knowledge is irrational.
The Amish do not fear knowledge, they just shun the use of some of it for themselves. They certainly aren't luddites, up in arms warning the world about the dangers of knowledge and its application, and attempting to stop either the pursuit or use of it by others.
Hank
Of course it would be, OWK. Otherwise, there could be no force. "Force" is not a spontaneously occurring phenomenon in this context. Someone or something had to get it started -- which I thought was the meaning of the word, "to initiate."
Man may claim the ability to act by force, subjugating others to his own pursuit of happiness if he wishes.
But he may not do so rightfully.
His ability to claim the moral authority to act by right, is contingent upon recognizing the equal claim in others.
On what basis do you make the claim that one choice is right?
Shalom.
It is not a moral theory. It is an amoral theory.
If I desire to achieve happiness by raping someone, that requires an initiation of force. The fact that it requires an initiation of force does not matter in the least to the fact that it would make me happy.
If that someone's husband restrains me, he is doing so to make himself happy. However, he is also initating force.
Are we both wrong?
The strawman standard of force, or it's converse, consent, will always yield a muddle.
Shalom.
Not true, at least as I use the word fear. If you understand that something can be very dangerous, you fear it, even though you may still deal with it. I fear gasoline, but I use it in my car daily.
Should I forget to fear gasoline, I become more dangerous when using it.
Similarly, knowledge is very dangerous. All who approach it should do so with holy fear.
Knowledge corrupts.
Shalom.
If you intend to continue using it, yes, you may photocopy the definition of "initiating" found there -- but he does want the book itself returned.
Is gasoline knowledge? It is knowledge that teaches you to be cautious when using it.
Similarly, knowledge is very dangerous.
No, it is ignorance that is very dangerous. Suppose you were ignorant of the nature of gasoline. Which would be dangerous, to know what gasoline is, or to be ignorant of it?
Knowledge corrupts
Is this something you know?
Hank
But the broader scope of the example I gave is that the anti-rapist has created a definition of right which the rapist does not accept. In order for the anti-rapist to impose his view of right on the rapist, he must initiate force. This is exactly what the rapist is doing - initiating force in order to impose his view of right on the wife of the anti-rapist - a view she does not accept.
Each wants to impose their own view of right on the other. Each is willing to initiate force to do so.
Why is one right and the other wrong?
Shalom.
Indeed. It is also true.
Knowledge corrupts. And it is to be feared because it can be very dangerous. You are correct that a lack of knowledge, even a lack of this knowledge about knowledge, is also dangerous.
Humility is the key to balancing these dangers.
Shalom.
I'll try one more time.. then give you up for willfully blind.
We speak of initiated force.
Not just force, but initiated force. The word "initiated" is used to differentiate the force being referred to, from other kinds of force which might in fact be altogether moral (defensive or punative force for example).
When a criminal chooses to violate rights by initiating force... (recognize here that he is the one who initiates/begins/starts/commences the force)... his choice to do so morally empowers the application of either defensive or punative force. Defensive and or punative force are RESPONSES... to force INITIATED by the criminal actor.
I can't make it any clearer than that.
Then we're both in big trouble, OWK. You are slicing and dicing language six ways to Sunday, and using words as a screen to conceal what is actually going on in reality. At least, that's what the picture looks like to me.
I simply cannot make out your meaning. It is unintelligible to me. And I can't make my problem any plainer than that.
But I'm just a fallible mortal of uncertain gifts. There's no need for you to pay me any mind.
Shalom.
Pride goeth before a fall.
You'll have to set it aside if you want to continue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.