Re: Serious, moderate discussion about Wesley Snipes.



JackneySneeb@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jul 4, 5:31 pm, nat <esen...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
JackneySn...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jul 4, 2:20 pm, nat <esen...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

1) Might makes right.
I reject it out of hand.
--Jackney Sneeb
No you don't. If you did, you would never had said this:
"Force in self defense is not only justified, it's an
obligation. " -Jackney Sneeb

That means self-defense [i.e., right] justifies the use of force - you
have it backwards, ed. Or else you think "might-makes-right" means
might can be used to defend that which is right, which is a tautology:
it also means might can defend wrong, too. The common use of the
phrase "might-makes-right" means "that which is right is determined by
that which ultimately prevails by use of force." Quite a different
matter than "might is rightly used in self defense."
--Jackney Sneeb

Where ever did you get the idea that 'might' means force?

The English language.


Look it up in the dictionary. 'Force' ain't there.
(You prove once again that your arguments never rise above the level
of semantics.)

Might is defined by POWER.

And in ed senter's Bizarro world, (armed state) POWER means something
other then force.
<eyeroll>


You lying SOS. Why can't you argue the point, malloy? You snipped
then distorted what I said.

Power is the ability to cause an effect.



A parent has power and authority over a child,

Power yes; authority, no. Responsibility, yes. Authority, no.


Your fetish against authority is bizarre. The child is completely
dependent on the parent.
And where did "responsibility" come from? If it were not for govt, the
mother could spit the child out and leave it to die.

and in the beginning,
this "might" is because the parent is bigger and stronger than the
child. But the child will soon grow bigger and stronger than the
parent, so the parent better have something mightier than pure force.
That is called love and respect.

The ability to kick each other's ass is called "love and respect"?
Only in the Bizarro world of ed senter.


Read it again, numbnut. That "something mightier than pure force" is
"love and respect".


Ever hear of the phrase "power of persuasion"? Reason is a great
persuader to those willing to listen. The USA was birthed during the
Age of Reason.

Too bad when they discovered the Articles of Confederation didn't
include extortion, the USA resorted to a constitution that added
forcible confiscation of property, crapping all over any claim to
"reason."


No govt can survive without taxes, dumbass. Your lack of reason is
duly noted.

And paradoxically, you must always keep the powder dry. That is why
the American Revolution was not a contradiction as you so flailingly
insist.

The American Revolution was not a contradiction. The Declaration of
Independence was certainly justified. Revolt was justified. Turning
the US into a carbon copy of the British regime that the colonists had
broken away from is the contradiction.


The colonists revolted against TYRANNY, not govt, dumbass.
When are you actually going to argue a point?

So you are wrong. The common use of the phrase "might makes right" is
that which is right is determined by power.

And that leads you to believe things like Hitler was right to shove
Jews into ovens - in those areas where he held control - up until the
time Russia, England, and the US defeated him. Don't claim you don't
believe that, because I have you on record saying it.


I don't "believe" it. It is an observation by which I conclude might
makes right. If Hitler would have remained in power, killing Jews
would have been right.


The Democrats control Congress. No one in their right mind would say
they got there by force.

The two sub-cults [i.e., parties] of the one ruling junta in the US
are direct descendants of the violent rebels, traitors, and
seditionists who killed the police and soldiers of their lawful
government in order to take the law into their own hands.


Do you have a point?
The "ruling junta" is the People of the USA.

You defend yourself not because you have a "right" to. You defend
yourself because you value self preservation and hope you are mightier
than the attacker.

1) If you defend yourself and lose, did that make you WRONG?
2) Does everyone have the same decision to make regarding self
defense?
3) How is that different from anarchy?
--Jackney Sneeb

In anarchy, the moral question is irrelevant.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Subform problem
    ... > to power an e.learning course. ... > I have a page form set up with a Question subform. ... since it was parent to child rather than child to ... > parent, but whatever I did apparently didn't tell Access exactly what I ...
    (microsoft.public.access.forms)
  • Re: PLEASE Pray if you want or can
    ... thinking of God as the parent of a small child is exactly ... how I started my earliest conception of "a power greater than myself." ...
    (alt.support.stop-smoking)
  • Re: Only child having only children?
    ... I don't think one, or the other, has 'veto' power (especially if it's ... How can you being a child into the world when one parent doesn't ...
    (misc.kids)
  • Re: Attention one and all - Whatcha all lookin for???
    ... My DS and his ex just came to an agreement for joint custody last night. ... Everyone gets 50-50 - no one parent has more power than they other. ... > he has the nerve to call this child a liar. ...
    (rec.crafts.textiles.quilting)
  • How defense "hawks" hijacked 9-1 and the war on terror and turned us in the wrong direction
    ... The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened ... War doesn't pay, nor does imperial ambition. ... the indefensibility of sacrificing even a single young American to die ...
    (alt.politics)