Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

Sure if you resist you're an aggressor. Police officers are people too.

Gray areas, gray areas everywhere...

 

[Dak]

Sure if you resist you're an aggressor. Police officers are people too.

Gray areas, gray areas everywhere...

Trying to escape is aggression. Priceless.

I can't wait for the next trial where the rapist tries to use this logic:

"Your honor, I'm actually the defendant here. While trying to pin her down, she aggressed against me over and over. I hit her vagina with my penis only in self defense."

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Ein, don't you think that whoever initiates force ( especially with bad reasoning; like ya know - the majority deciding to vote away the rights of the individual - taxation/theft) is morally wrong?

 

[Einherjar86]

Trying to escape is aggression. Priceless.

I can't wait for the next trial where the rapist tries to use this logic:

"Your honor, I'm actually the defendant here. While trying to pin her down, she aggressed against me over and over. I hit her vagina with my penis only in self defense."

Aggression goes both ways. You love valorizing certain forms of violence as self-defense. It's aggression, plain and simple. I'm not saying nobody should be violent, but refusing to call it violence or aggression is simply... well, dumb.

Ein, don't you think that whoever initiates force ( especially with bad reasoning; like ya know - the majority deciding to vote away the rights of the individual - taxation/theft) is morally wrong?

No, because I don't believe in morality.

Furthermore, every single scenario is unique, so placing an absolute moral imperative on non-aggression is ridiculous.

 

[Dak]

Violence =/= aggression. You're using those terms interchangeably.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's because drawing the line between offensive and defensive action is arbitrary and questionable.

EDIT:

http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_slavin_how_algorithms_shape_our_world.html

 

[Dak]

That's because drawing the line between offensive and defensive action is arbitrary and questionable.

I would say drawing the line is easy. The difficulty is in filtering to either side. But we can make it easier with further distinctions.

I mean, there's even violent aggression which is perfectly fine, or at least we have allowed it: Sports.

EDIT:

http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_slavin_how_algorithms_shape_our_world.html

Great presentation, exactly what I'm talking about.

The comparison to stealth aircraft and air defense was interesting since that was my concern in the "service".

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't think it's easy to draw the line, primarily because that line will undoubtedly be viewed as different depending on the parties involved. We thus need to introduce an additional party into the scenario as arbiter. Human subjects engaged in combat, or competition, or what-have-you, will rarely ever agree to lines of aggression and defense.

And I'm a bit surprised you liked the presentation actually, since he claims that mathematics aren't necessarily found in nature, but that they shape the natural world (i.e. that we introduce them into reality and this, in turn, alters reality).

 

[Dak]

And I'm a bit surprised you liked the presentation actually, since he claims that mathematics aren't necessarily found in nature, but that they shape the natural world (i.e. that we introduce them into reality and this, in turn, alters reality).

Well we don't "find" the algorithms in nature in the sense that x algorithm isn't laying on the forest floor.

As far as an arbiter goes: What do they reference? Saying that people have a bias things fall on either side of a line is not the same thing as saying it's "arbitrary". "He bumped into me (violence, violence=aggression!) so I strangled him to death". Well it's all arbitrary so cool bro.

 

[Dak]

http://www.ecu.edu/news/ncgunlaw.cfm

In late July, Gov. Pat McCrory signed into law House Bill 937, which amended the state firearms laws. Included in the new legislation are provisions allowing persons with concealed carry handgun permits to bring their guns onto school campuses.

East Carolina University Police want to make sure the campus community knows and understands the following important points:

As of Oct. 1, the law allows a person with a valid concealed carry handgun permit to possess a handgun on educational property, provided that the weapon is in a locked container attached to a vehicle, such as a toolbox, or in any container in a locked vehicle.

The new law also applies at spectator events where vehicles are parked on campus property, such as football tailgating or concerts.

Examples: If the weapon is in the glove box of a locked vehicle, and the owner has a concealed carry handgun permit, then he is compliant with the law. If the weapon is lying in the back of a locked SUV and is visible, even if the owner has a concealed carry handgun permit, he is not compliant. If a person with a concealed carry handgun permit has a shotgun in his vehicle, he is not complying with the law, even if the vehicle is locked.

The new legislation does not provide a provision for concealed carry handgun permit holders to assist law enforcement officers. The weapon must be in a container in a locked vehicle at all times.

For persons found in violation of the law, state and university sanctions could apply.

It remains against the law for those without concealed carry permits to possess a weapon on campus property.

Wasn't aware of this. A change in the right direction.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well we don't "find" the algorithms in nature in the sense that x algorithm isn't laying on the forest floor.

Arguing with you is like pulling teeth sometimes.

As far as an arbiter goes: What do they reference? Saying that people have a bias things fall on either side of a line is not the same thing as saying it's "arbitrary". "He bumped into me (violence, violence=aggression!) so I strangled him to death". Well it's all arbitrary so cool bro.

"Ow. Ow. Ow."

It is the same as saying it's arbitrary if there's no actual line in reality to be found. The arbiter's decision is still arbitrary as well in that it reduces to someone's impression of events.

I can appreciate that you think you've solved the puzzle of reality, but I can't appreciate your certainty in how the world works.

 

[Dak]

Arguing with you is like pulling teeth sometimes.

"Ow. Ow. Ow."

It is the same as saying it's arbitrary if there's no actual line in reality to be found. The arbiter's decision is still arbitrary as well in that it reduces to someone's impression of events.

I can appreciate that you think you've solved the puzzle of reality, but I can't appreciate your certainty in how the world works.

We have to allow/control for variance and outliers and so on. That's part of reality.

"Well, that's just your opinion man" doesn't shore up a flat earther's impression.

 

[Einherjar86]

Indeed. So. Tell me how we "allow/control for variance and outliers and so on." This is, of course, part of reality. And we have institutions for this. It's called governance.

 

[Dak]

Indeed. So. Tell me how we "allow/control for variance and outliers and so on." This is, of course, part of reality. And we have institutions for this. It's called The Mother Church

Easy substitution. Just need to step back in time a bit (or maybe just to a different country). I don't see a difference.

 

[Einherjar86]

Sure that's an easy substitution. What's your point?

 

[Dak]

I said control for (and take into account) outliers. Not put the outliers in control

 

[Einherjar86]

Don't understand.

 

[Dak]

Outliers would be socio/psychopaths. Monopolistic/coercive systems are custom made for these types. It doesn't control for them, it gives them control. it also squelches variance.

 

[Einherjar86]

They're not made for those types, although those types can co-opt the institutions.

 

[Dak]

They're not made for those types, although those types can co-opt the institutions.

Positions based primarily on charisma, charm, sophistry and demagoguery are easy pickings and thusly magnets for sociopaths. Relating back to Breaking Bad: Gus Fring would have made an excellent politician or pastor. There was more money in drugs, and the institutions within the political sphere that were onstensibly there to spot him, were wined and dined by him.

It's a joke/game to them, because they win so easily.