What makes the initiation of force/fraud wrong?

[Darth Wong]

This is just amateur league stuff.

Which still appears to place it beyond your level, I'm afraid. Your only answer to a stock ethics scenario is to deny its possibility and then continue to rant about your system without justifying it.

Despite the impossibility of this scenario, when faced with such an emergency situation, one might make the active choice to violate the property rights of another by theft or force, but one would be deluding himself to imagine that it is in any way anything less than an immoral act.

So you think it's immoral to steal in order to save a life? You have no concept of the different relative values of human life and a piece of food?

Same as if I am dangling from a balcony in a high rise. If I slip and fall I might manuver myself to land on your balcony below me to save my life.

But while I would choose to act in such a way to save my life, it would not justify or forgive the fact that I have violated your property rights, nor would my need absolve me from the necessity of making restitution.

And how do you justify this valuation? It's always the same with you: you spout your long-winded pompous declarations of what you think is right, and then clam up, evade, or simply ignore it when someone demands that you justify those claims.

One might - in those rare emergency situation - choose to act immorally, but it is the reality evader who attempts to justify the action as moral, based on need.

Wow, another pompous declaration of just how right you are. Perhaps you could get around to justifying some of your claims, eh? You claimed that your ethics system is based solely on "irreducible primaries", but when challenged to produce those "irreducible primaries", you simply regurgitated some tautologies, some facts common to all ethical systems, and ... the tenets of your system, in a lovely display of circular reasoning: in essense, "morality is based solely on rights because morality is based solely on rights".

And now, when faced with an ethical situation in which your system clearly fails, you simply declare that the system's judgements, which are clearly absurd, should not be followed (after pretending that it's "impossible" despite the fact that it's undoubtedly happened in many poverty-stricken nations around the world, and more times than you can count). If its judgements have little to do with what you should actually do in any given situation, then what good is this system of yours, apart from giving you an opportunity to blow pompous wind?

[HemlockGrey]

The thought that 'property rights' are equal to or exceed the right to life is a very disturbing thought. No wonder SR is so fucked up.

[Zoink]

How about:

You are walking down the street. You see a kid in his backyard, drowning in a pool. There is a visible "no trespassing" sign.

What is the "moral" thing to do? ie. What should I do?

By the maxim, it would seem that I am initiated a "force" against the owner's desire not to have trespassers.

[The Question]

How about:

You are walking down the street. You see a kid in his backyard, drowning in a pool. There is a visible "no trespassing" sign.

What is the "moral" thing to do? ie. What should I do?

You make the choice to violate the property rights of the owner to save the child, because that would be in accordance with your values, as it is mine.

But you do not delude yourself that the trespassing was, in itself, an immoral act.

[The Question]

This is just amateur league stuff.

Which still appears to place it beyond your level, I'm afraid. Your only answer to a stock ethics scenario is to deny its possibility and then continue to rant about your system without justifying it.

Despite the impossibility of this scenario, when faced with such an emergency situation, one might make the active choice to violate the property rights of another by theft or force, but one would be deluding himself to imagine that it is in any way anything less than an immoral act.

So you think it's immoral to steal in order to save a life? You have no concept of the different relative values of human life and a piece of food?

Same as if I am dangling from a balcony in a high rise. If I slip and fall I might manuver myself to land on your balcony below me to save my life.

But while I would choose to act in such a way to save my life, it would not justify or forgive the fact that I have violated your property rights, nor would my need absolve me from the necessity of making restitution.

And how do you justify this valuation? It's always the same with you: you spout your long-winded pompous declarations of what you think is right, and then clam up, evade, or simply ignore it when someone demands that you justify those claims.

One might - in those rare emergency situation - choose to act immorally, but it is the reality evader who attempts to justify the action as moral, based on need.

Wow, another pompous declaration of just how right you are. Perhaps you could get around to justifying some of your claims, eh? You claimed that your ethics system is based solely on "irreducible primaries", but when challenged to produce those "irreducible primaries", you simply regurgitated some tautologies, some facts common to all ethical systems, and ... the tenets of your system, in a lovely display of circular reasoning: in essense, "morality is based solely on rights because morality is based solely on rights".

And now, when faced with an ethical situation in which your system clearly fails, you simply declare that the system's judgements, which are clearly absurd, should not be followed (after pretending that it's "impossible" despite the fact that it's undoubtedly happened in many poverty-stricken nations around the world, and more times than you can count). If its judgements have little to do with what you should actually do in any given situation, then what good is this system of yours, apart from giving you an opportunity to blow pompous wind?

Ironic that your post entirely consists of pompous wind, and nothing more.

You don't disagree to make a point - you don't even have one. You simply are disagreeable.

[HemlockGrey]

If I fall off my balcony and angle myself to land on someone else's, I have done them no harm. Violating an imaginary border marked 'property rights' does not constitute harm. I have not damaged their balcony, ransacked their house, etc. etc.

Incidentally, I especially like how Storm Rucker has now resorted to 'Well, you're just wrong, because you are'.

[The Question]

So you think it's immoral to steal in order to save a life? You have no concept of the different relative values of human life and a piece of food?

The right to life and the right to property are equally unalienable.

Your needs just cannot justify seizing other people's means.

And how do you justify this valuation?

Are you being willfully blind or are you that stupid? I've explained this at length - demanding that I go back to square one with every post is the tactic of a creationist.

Wow, another pompous declaration of just how right you are. Perhaps you could get around to justifying some of your claims, eh?

You are just being willfully blind. I know you read the first post. It justified this. If you wish to evade that, that is your choice.

Your wishes don't change facts.

[The Question]

If I fall off my balcony and angle myself to land on someone else's, I have done them no harm. Violating an imaginary border marked 'property rights' does not constitute harm.

Trespassing on private property against the wishes of the owner are a violation of the owner's property rights.

No wishing it away will change that.

[SirNitram]

If I fall off my balcony and angle myself to land on someone else's, I have done them no harm. Violating an imaginary border marked 'property rights' does not constitute harm.

Trespassing on private property against the wishes of the owner are a violation of the owner's property rights.

No wishing it away will change that.

Apparantly, you're wishing that enough pompous tautologies will make you right.... The irony of your posts approaches weapons-grade.

[HemlockGrey]

Trespassing on private property against the wishes of the owner are a violation of the owner's property rights.

No wishing it away will change that.

You really do have your priorities in order.

The right to property is exceeded by the right to life. If you fail to recognize why a human life is more important than the sancitity of someone's balcony, you are, essentially, an idiot.

Willful trepass when there are no extinuating circumstances is clearly wrong. However, there is nothing wrong or immoral about jumping on someone's balcony to save your life, because you're not doing any objective damage to the person's property, and any indignation that the person might suffer is far outweighed by the value of your own life and(potentionally) the life of others.

[HemlockGrey]

Trespassing on private property against the wishes of the owner are a violation of the owner's property rights.

No wishing it away will change that.

You really do have your priorities in order.

The right to property is exceeded by the right to life. If you fail to recognize why a human life is more important than the sancitity of someone's balcony, you are, essentially, an idiot.

Willful trepass when there are no extinuating circumstances is clearly wrong. However, there is nothing wrong or immoral about jumping on someone's balcony to save your life, because you're not doing any objective damage to the person's property, and any indignation that the person might suffer is far outweighed by the value of your own life and(potentionally) the life of others.

[Darth Servo]

Are you being willfully blind or are you that stupid? I've explained this at length - demanding that I go back to square one with every post is the tactic of a creationist.

So is endless evasion of points. Human life is MUCH more important than property. If its a choice between one or the other, the moral thing to do is choose the former.

[The Question]

If I fall off my balcony and angle myself to land on someone else's, I have done them no harm. Violating an imaginary border marked 'property rights' does not constitute harm.

Trespassing on private property against the wishes of the owner are a violation of the owner's property rights.

No wishing it away will change that.

Apparantly, you're wishing that enough pompous tautologies will make you right.... The irony of your posts approaches weapons-grade.

Get lost, Mighty Mouse.

This is a discussion for big boys, not ankle-biters with less intelligence than trained chimps.

[SirNitram]

Get lost, Mighty Mouse.

This is a discussion for big boys, not ankle-biters with less intelligence than trained chimps.

So what are you doing here? Did Bobo beat you at Trivial Pursuit again?

[The Question]

Are you being willfully blind or are you that stupid? I've explained this at length - demanding that I go back to square one with every post is the tactic of a creationist.

So is endless evasion of points. Human life is MUCH more important than property. If its a choice between one or the other, the moral thing to do is choose the former.

Human life may be more important than property in the sense that one is more easily replaced, but individual rights - life liberty and property - are all unalienable, for any reason, under any circumstances.

This does not preclude you from saving the life of the innocent - it simply recognizes that through your actions you have violated the rights of the property owner.

[SirNitram]

Are you being willfully blind or are you that stupid? I've explained this at length - demanding that I go back to square one with every post is the tactic of a creationist.

So is endless evasion of points. Human life is MUCH more important than property. If its a choice between one or the other, the moral thing to do is choose the former.

Human life may be more important than property in the sense that one is more easily replaced, but individual rights - life liberty and property - are all unalienable, for any reason, under any circumstances.

Prove the right to property is unalienable. Reality tends to alienate it often.

[Frank Hipper]

Rucker, don't you long for the day when you could simply post "faggot" as a reply and not have to work up a sweat? It really is about all this is adding up to anyway.

[MKSheppard]

SHIFT FIRE MISSION TO GRID A33-F33

Automated Stork Fucker Reply Program v1.3

In case you haven't noticed, if I so wish I can come and go as I please into any system, and forum, any website. Even the secret ones. The fingerprints I do leave I leave on purpose.

We're still waiting for you to BACK UP THAT CLAIM

And making up bullshit about Alyseka posting to the HAB when he hasn't
posted at all to HAB for the last 24 hours is just stupid.

Or was it just a boast? Will we have to wait until the heat death of the universe to find out?

Stop dancing around the issue by making stupid snide comments, either
admit that you don't know jack shit, or PROVE your boast.

Funny thing:
All I have to do is hit CTRL-V and cut n paste this missive. Storky on the
other hand, has to spend at least 30 seconds thinking up a reply.

LOL, who's dancing to whose tune now?


Typical TK, make outlandish boasts, and then evasively refuse to back
them up - reminds me of those "psychics" that won't meet with James
Randi

[Darth Wong]

Human life may be more important than property in the sense that one is more easily replaced, but individual rights - life liberty and property - are all unalienable, for any reason, under any circumstances.

This is priceless. TQ basically says "the right to life does not outweight the right to property". When asked to defend it, he essentially says "the right to life and the right to property are equally inalienable", hence restating his position rather than justifying it, and presumably hoping no one will notice yet another circular justification.

Once you strip away unnecessary tautologies like "reality is real" etc., my system of ethics relies on the simple premise that pain/death are bad, life/pleasure are good, so we need more of the latter and less of the former. The system has no other rules, since its only real tenet is that we should take whatever actions are necessary in order to reach this goal.

TQ's system, on the other hand, relies upon numerous premises (far more numerous than my single premise). He assumes that all rights (life, property, liberty) are of equal stature, and is incapable of justifying this assumption. He assumes that no right can intrude upon another, even though this is routinely necessary, and again, he provides no justification for this assumption. He assumes that one can simply state that certain rights exist with no justification, and this declaration proves itself. He assumes that the sole purpose of society is to preserve individual rights, even though no society with such single-minded purpose has ever existed or been shown to work. He states all of these premises as if they are self-evident, which they are not, and has shown himself to be totally incapable of defending them in any manner other than simply restating them.

Pure bush-league; the sad thing is that he seems to think he's quite good at this.

[The Question]

So is endless evasion of points. Human life is MUCH more important than property. If its a choice between one or the other, the moral thing to do is choose the former.

Human life may be more important than property in the sense that one is more easily replaced, but individual rights - life liberty and property - are all unalienable, for any reason, under any circumstances.

Prove the right to property is unalienable. Reality tends to alienate it often.

A right violated is not a right invalidated.

The right to life is violated daily - that does not make it any less an inalienable right.

[SirNitram]

A right violated is not a right invalidated.

The right to life is violated daily - that does not make it any less an inalienable right.

Very good, you mastered third grade critical thinking. Now explain why the right to property is as important as the right to life.

[The Question]

This is priceless. TQ basically says "the right to life does not outweight the right to property". When asked to defend it, he essentially says "the right to life and the right to property are equally inalienable", hence restating his position rather than justifying it, and presumably hoping no one will notice yet another circular justification.

You have very poor reading comprehension skills.

Try again.

Once you strip away unnecessary tautologies like "reality is real" etc., my system of ethics relies on the simple premise that pain/death are bad, life/pleasure are good, so we need more of the latter and less of the former. The system has no other rules, since its only real tenet is that we should take whatever actions are necessary in order to reach this goal.

TQ's system, on the other hand, relies upon numerous premises (far more numerous than my single premise). He assumes that all rights (life, property, liberty) are of equal stature, and is incapable of justifying this assumption. He assumes that no right can intrude upon another, even though this is routinely necessary, and again, he provides no justification for this assumption. He assumes that one can simply state that certain rights exist with no justification, and this declaration proves itself. He assumes that the sole purpose of society is to preserve individual rights, even though no society with such single-minded purpose has ever existed or been shown to work. He states all of these premises as if they are self-evident, which they are not, and has shown himself to be totally incapable of defending them in any manner other than simply restating them.

Pure bush-league; the sad thing is that he seems to think he's quite good at this.

The sad thing is you actually believe this empty bluster of your and your unfounded assertions equal rational discourse.

They do not, and it is self-evident.

[The Question]

A right violated is not a right invalidated.

The right to life is violated daily - that does not make it any less an inalienable right.

Very good, you mastered third grade critical thinking. Now explain why the right to property is as important as the right to life.

Property - that is, the fruits of one's own labor - is the mechanism by which man sustain's his life, as a rational being.

[SirNitram]

A right violated is not a right invalidated.

The right to life is violated daily - that does not make it any less an inalienable right.

Very good, you mastered third grade critical thinking. Now explain why the right to property is as important as the right to life.

Property - that is, the fruits of one's own labor - is the mechanism by which man sustain's his life, as a rational being.

So you are now redefining 'property' as 'things which sustain life'. So it's perfectly acceptable to steal a PS2.

The more you try to defend your absurd ideas, the more ridiculous you get.

[The Question]

Very good, you mastered third grade critical thinking. Now explain why the right to property is as important as the right to life.

Property - that is, the fruits of one's own labor - is the mechanism by which man sustain's his life, as a rational being.

So you are now redefining 'property' as 'things which sustain life'. So it's perfectly acceptable to steal a PS2.

The more you try to defend your absurd ideas, the more ridiculous you get.

You want to try eating air? Drinking nothing?