Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  Aggression

Poll

Does your understanding of "aggression" require that it be involuntary?

Yes. "Voluntary Aggression" is a contradiction.
- 21 (77.8%)
No. Aggression has nothing to do with consent.
- 6 (22.2%)

Total Members Voted: 12


Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down

Author Topic: Aggression  (Read 15539 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

gibson042

  • Non-Aggression Principal since 2006
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
    • gibson.mp
Re: Aggression
« Reply #60 on: April 06, 2007, 03:33:12 AM »

So far correct, but you must admit that your definition isn't used by anyone else,( check the dictionary ) so you need a good reason to make up a new one.

It is an explicit refinement of standing definitions.  I believe that many people already use it implicitly.  My reason for the clarification is to ensure an objective (Merriam-Webster 1b) basis.

Quote
Quote
  The victim asks for restitution, and I refuse.  They ask for arbitration, and I refuse.  This is still A_g but not A_m.

No, this is also A_M. You are responsible for your actions, even if they are not aggressive. Evading responsibility for your actions is tantamount to theft. They can skip the arbitration, as you have defaulted on your right to enter into it, by refusing it. They can now force restitution.

You defined aggression (A_m) to have taken place whenever both of the following are true:
1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2, both knowingly and intentionally, without permission, or the belief in its right to do so.
2. E1 has not previously done the same to E2, or to any other entity that has delegated its defense to E2.

Please show me, step-by-step, how refusing arbitration is A_m.  Do the same for these examples:
Quote
A mix-up could result in judgment being rendered against the wrong person.  A girl could throw a rock through the window of her boyfriend's house because he broke his promise not to sleep with anyone else.  Or someone could just snap and start killing all the "children of Satan" in the world.


Quote
In an accident or in a misunderstanding, although there may ( as in a crash ) or may not be violent physical forces involved, there is no use of force and hence, no aggression.

I'm sorry if I'm not being clear enough.  The "gray area" force is men with guns taking money that I refused to offer as restitution.  I did not aggress (A_m) because the damage was accidental.  They are not aggressing (A_m) because they believe they have the right to directly affect my body and property by way of a judgment rendered against me in absentia.

Quote
NIMRP can be added on to both your system or mine. In my system, it adds an extra layer of courtesy. In your system, it's an absolute necessity, in order to minimise the damage done by a very confusing definition of aggression.

What's confusing about taking responsibility for your actions?  When someone does damage, whether accidental or not, it places an onus on them to undo the harm.  Minimal response gives them the explicit chance to voluntarily make things right, which everyone deserves.
Logged
"WOOOOOP  WOOOOOP  WOOOOP EH EH EH EH HHHEEEOOOO HEEEOOOOO" —Rillion

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: Aggression
« Reply #61 on: April 06, 2007, 06:16:17 AM »

So far correct, but you must admit that your definition isn't used by anyone else,( check the dictionary ) so you need a good reason to make up a new one.

It is an explicit refinement of standing definitions.  I believe that many people already use it implicitly.  My reason for the clarification is to ensure an objective (Merriam-Webster 1b) basis.

Here's your M.W. definition:

Main Entry: ag·gres·sion
Pronunciation: &-'gre-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin aggression-, aggressio attack, from aggredi to attack, from ad- + gradi to step, go -- more at GRADE
1 : a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master
2 : the practice of making attacks or encroachments; especially : unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another
3 : hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration

This is clearly A_M, not A_G.

Quote
Quote
  The victim asks for restitution, and I refuse.  They ask for arbitration, and I refuse.  This is still A_g but not A_m.

No, this is also A_M. You are responsible for your actions, even if they are not aggressive. Evading responsibility for your actions is tantamount to theft. They can skip the arbitration, as you have defaulted on your right to enter into it, by refusing it. They can now force restitution.

Quote
You defined aggression (A_m) to have taken place whenever both of the following are true:
1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2, both knowingly and intentionally, without permission, or the belief in its right to do so.
2. E1 has not previously done the same to E2, or to any other entity that has delegated its defense to E2.

Quote
Please show me, step-by-step, how refusing arbitration is A_m.


1. Someone claims that you are infringing their rights or have damaged their person or property.

2. You deny his claim and then refuse arbitration, or you ignore him altogether.

3. Your refusal shows lack of good faith, similar to an alleged thief, who, when confronted, runs away.

4. This amounts to admitting responsibility though default.( analogous to not showing up for a trial, in the first case, or leaving the scene of an accident, in the second case )

5. It also amounts to refusal to pay for what you've taken, which is theft, hence A_M.



Quote
Do the same for these examples:
Quote
A mix-up could result in judgment being rendered against the wrong person.  A girl could throw a rock through the window of her boyfriend's house because he broke his promise not to sleep with anyone else.  Or someone could just snap and start killing all the "children of Satan" in the world.

These are examples of someone intentionally attacking other people. Those other people are innocent until proven guilty, so the attackers cannot think they have a right to do so, unless they believe they have a "right to aggression", but the right I'm referring to in the definition must be a natural right, for a right to aggression would make the word aggression meaningless.


Quote
In an accident or in a misunderstanding, although there may ( as in a crash ) or may not be violent physical forces involved, there is no use of force and hence, no aggression.

Quote
I'm sorry if I'm not being clear enough.  The "gray area" force is men with guns taking money that I refused to offer as restitution.  I did not aggress (A_m) because the damage was accidental.  They are not aggressing (A_m) because they believe they have the right to directly affect my body and property by way of a judgment rendered against me in absentia.

I was just trying to explain why the only conceivable reason I could think of for calling an accident or honest misunderstanding an aggression was not valid.

Quote
NIMRP can be added on to both your system or mine. In my system, it adds an extra layer of courtesy. In your system, it's an absolute necessity, in order to minimise the damage done by a very confusing definition of aggression.

Quote
What's confusing about taking responsibility for your actions?
 

Your actions do not need to be aggressive for you to be responsible for them. Malfeasance is not a requirement for liability.

Quote
When someone does damage, whether accidental or not, it places an onus on them to undo the harm.  Minimal response gives them the explicit chance to voluntarily make things right, which everyone deserves.

It isn't right or fair to treat someone who creates a liability through an honest mistake or accident the same way as a criminal, which your system would do, thereby making everyone a criminal or no-one a criminal.

BTW: I know you're a very intelligent person, but isn't time to throw in the towel on your definition?
Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

gibson042

  • Non-Aggression Principal since 2006
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
    • gibson.mp
Re: Aggression
« Reply #62 on: April 06, 2007, 01:39:37 PM »

This will hopefully be my last post on the topic.  Our discussion has grown quite fragmented, so I will try to minimize quoting.

First off, Merriam-Webster broke this camel's back.  "Aggression" is obviously the wrong word for what I'm trying to say.  So henceforth, my definition will apply instead to "infringement".  I'd love to rescind the definition entirely, as you suggest, but I have yet to see a better replacement.  The best argument you have against it is that it treats people who make mistakes the same way as criminals, but the minimal response patch fixes that by offering everyone—including criminals—the same opportunity to rectify things.  The very solution you propose.


Quote
Please show me, step-by-step, how refusing arbitration is A_m.


1. Someone claims that you are infringing their rights or have damaged their person or property.

2. You deny his claim and then refuse arbitration, or you ignore him altogether.

3. Your refusal shows lack of good faith, similar to an alleged thief, who, when confronted, runs away.

4. This amounts to admitting responsibility though default.( analogous to not showing up for a trial, in the first case, or leaving the scene of an accident, in the second case )

5. It also amounts to refusal to pay for what you've taken, which is theft, hence A_M.

You're still not understanding my request.  Please show me how this is aggression, by matching circumstances to the exact text of your proposed definition.

Quote
Quote
A mix-up could result in judgment being rendered against the wrong person.  A girl could throw a rock through the window of her boyfriend's house because he broke his promise not to sleep with anyone else.  Or someone could just snap and start killing all the "children of Satan" in the world.

These are examples of someone intentionally attacking other people. Those other people are innocent until proven guilty, so the attackers cannot think they have a right to do so, unless they believe they have a "right to aggression", but the right I'm referring to in the definition must be a natural right, for a right to aggression would make the word aggression meaningless.

Yet another modification to your definition.  It's far too convoluted for my taste.  Also, if I get arrested because of a mix-up in judgment, that is not "someone intentionally attacking other people".

Quote
Quote
I'm sorry if I'm not being clear enough.  The "gray area" force is men with guns taking money that I refused to offer as restitution.  I did not aggress (A_m) because the damage was accidental.  They are not aggressing (A_m) because they believe they have the right to directly affect my body and property by way of a judgment rendered against me in absentia.

I was just trying to explain why the only conceivable reason I could think of for calling an accident or honest misunderstanding an aggression was not valid.

So you are okay with allowing "gray area" force that is neither aggression nor a response to it?  That seems odd, considering one of your principles was "You may not use force on someone except in response to aggression."
Logged
"WOOOOOP  WOOOOOP  WOOOOP EH EH EH EH HHHEEEOOOO HEEEOOOOO" —Rillion

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: Aggression
« Reply #63 on: April 06, 2007, 06:07:37 PM »

This will hopefully be my last post on the topic.  Our discussion has grown quite fragmented, so I will try to minimize quoting.

First off, Merriam-Webster broke this camel's back.  "Aggression" is obviously the wrong word for what I'm trying to say.  So henceforth, my definition will apply instead to "infringement".  I'd love to rescind the definition entirely, as you suggest, but I have yet to see a better replacement.  The best argument you have against it is that it treats people who make mistakes the same way as criminals, but the minimal response patch fixes that by offering everyone—including criminals—the same opportunity to rectify things.  The very solution you propose.


Quote
Please show me, step-by-step, how refusing arbitration is A_m.


1. Someone claims that you are infringing their rights or have damaged their person or property.

2. You deny his claim and then refuse arbitration, or you ignore him altogether.

3. Your refusal shows lack of good faith, similar to an alleged thief, who, when confronted, runs away.

4. This amounts to admitting responsibility though default.( analogous to not showing up for a trial, in the first case, or leaving the scene of an accident, in the second case )

5. It also amounts to refusal to pay for what you've taken, which is theft, hence A_M.

You're still not understanding my request.  Please show me how this is aggression, by matching circumstances to the exact text of your proposed definition.

I'm sorry. I thought the next step was too obvious to spell out, but here it is:

6. Steps 1. through  5. shows that it amounts to theft. Theft fits the following definition:

1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2, both knowingly and intentionally, without permission, or the belief in its right to do so.
2. E1 has not previously done the same to E2, or to any other entity that has delegated its defense to E2.





Quote
Quote
A mix-up could result in judgment being rendered against the wrong person.  A girl could throw a rock through the window of her boyfriend's house because he broke his promise not to sleep with anyone else.  Or someone could just snap and start killing all the "children of Satan" in the world.

These are examples of someone intentionally attacking other people. Those other people are innocent until proven guilty, so the attackers cannot think they have a right to do so, unless they believe they have a "right to aggression", but the right I'm referring to in the definition must be a natural right, for a right to aggression would make the word aggression meaningless.

Quote
Yet another modification to your definition.  It's far too convoluted for my taste.  Also, if I get arrested because of a mix-up in judgment, that is not "someone intentionally attacking other people".

The only part of the mix up in judgments presented in these examples that constitute aggression are that the aggressor has responded with force against parties that are presumed to be innocent, as they have not been reasonably proven to be guilty. If they merely made accusations, but behaved in a manner that reflected the required presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, then there would have been no aggression, just bad judgment calls.

Quote
Quote
I'm sorry if I'm not being clear enough.  The "gray area" force is men with guns taking money that I refused to offer as restitution.  I did not aggress (A_m) because the damage was accidental.  They are not aggressing (A_m) because they believe they have the right to directly affect my body and property by way of a judgment rendered against me in absentia.

I was just trying to explain why the only conceivable reason I could think of for calling an accident or honest misunderstanding an aggression was not valid.

Quote
So you are okay with allowing "gray area" force that is neither aggression nor a response to it?  That seems odd, considering one of your principles was "You may not use force on someone except in response to aggression."

It's not a grey area. Up until the point where you refused to pay restitution and/or cease inadvertently encroaching on my rights, you have not committed aggression and I have no right to use force against you. Once you default on your responsibility to settle the conflict and/or make amends and/or restitution if the conflict is decided in my favor, you have crossed the line, from simple non-criminal liability, over into outright aggression.
Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

gibson042

  • Non-Aggression Principal since 2006
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
    • gibson.mp
Re: Aggression
« Reply #64 on: April 07, 2007, 11:48:27 PM »

1. Someone claims that you are infringing their rights or have damaged their person or property.

2. You deny his claim and then refuse arbitration, or you ignore him altogether.

3. Your refusal shows lack of good faith, similar to an alleged thief, who, when confronted, runs away.

4. This amounts to admitting responsibility though default.( analogous to not showing up for a trial, in the first case, or leaving the scene of an accident, in the second case )

5. It also amounts to refusal to pay for what you've taken, which is theft, hence A_M.

You're still not understanding my request.  Please show me how this is aggression, by matching circumstances to the exact text of your proposed definition.

I'm sorry. I thought the next step was too obvious to spell out, but here it is:

6. Steps 1. through  5. shows that it amounts to theft. Theft fits the following definition:

1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2, both knowingly and intentionally, without permission, or the belief in its right to do so.
2. E1 has not previously done the same to E2, or to any other entity that has delegated its defense to E2.

I am not comfortable with something as basic as identifying infringement being dependent on the course of future events.  Either it was willful at the time, or it was not; either it was aggression as soon as it happened, or it is not aggression at all.

Quote
Quote
So you are okay with allowing "gray area" force that is neither aggression nor a response to it?  That seems odd, considering one of your principles was "You may not use force on someone except in response to aggression."

It's not a grey area. Up until the point where you refused to pay restitution and/or cease inadvertently encroaching on my rights, you have not committed aggression and I have no right to use force against you. Once you default on your responsibility to settle the conflict and/or make amends and/or restitution if the conflict is decided in my favor, you have crossed the line, from simple non-criminal liability, over into outright aggression.

What about the wrongful arrest scenario?  Force has certainly been used on me.  I was previously a non-participant, so they are not responding to aggression.  They believe they are, so they are not themselves aggressing by your definition.  How is this not a gray area?
Logged
"WOOOOOP  WOOOOOP  WOOOOP EH EH EH EH HHHEEEOOOO HEEEOOOOO" —Rillion

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: Aggression
« Reply #65 on: April 08, 2007, 01:58:16 AM »

1. Someone claims that you are infringing their rights or have damaged their person or property.

2. You deny his claim and then refuse arbitration, or you ignore him altogether.

3. Your refusal shows lack of good faith, similar to an alleged thief, who, when confronted, runs away.

4. This amounts to admitting responsibility though default.( analogous to not showing up for a trial, in the first case, or leaving the scene of an accident, in the second case )

5. It also amounts to refusal to pay for what you've taken, which is theft, hence A_M.

You're still not understanding my request.  Please show me how this is aggression, by matching circumstances to the exact text of your proposed definition.

I'm sorry. I thought the next step was too obvious to spell out, but here it is:

6. Steps 1. through  5. shows that it amounts to theft. Theft fits the following definition:

1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2, both knowingly and intentionally, without permission, or the belief in its right to do so.
2. E1 has not previously done the same to E2, or to any other entity that has delegated its defense to E2.

I am not comfortable with something as basic as identifying infringement being dependent on the course of future events.

Quote
  Either it was willful at the time, or it was not; either it was aggression as soon as it happened, or it is not aggression at all.

That's correct. It either was or wasn't aggression at the time it happened.

The refusal to pay a debt incurred or the refusal to cease an inadvertent infringement of my rights can be viewed as a separate subsequent incident.

In the first case it would be analogous to purchasing something with the intention of paying for it when the bill arrives. (It's not aggression) Next week the bill arrives, but during the week you find out that your being transferred to a job overseas and thinking that it will be too difficult for the vendor to find you and collect his money and that you won't need this vendor anymore, you toss his bill in the garbage can.(Now it's aggression.)

In the second case, you inadvertently prevent me from fully exercising my property rights.(It's an honest mistake, so it's not aggression.) I bring this to your attention, insisting that you stop it. You ignore my complaint and continue your infringement.(This is not an honest mistake anymore. It's aggression.)

Quote
Quote
So you are okay with allowing "gray area" force that is neither aggression nor a response to it?  That seems odd, considering one of your principles was "You may not use force on someone except in response to aggression."

It's not a grey area. Up until the point where you refused to pay restitution and/or cease inadvertently encroaching on my rights, you have not committed aggression and I have no right to use force against you. Once you default on your responsibility to settle the conflict and/or make amends and/or restitution if the conflict is decided in my favor, you have crossed the line, from simple non-criminal liability, over into outright aggression.

Quote
What about the wrongful arrest scenario?  Force has certainly been used on me.  I was previously a non-participant, so they are not responding to aggression.  They believe they are, so they are not themselves committing aggression by your definition.  How is this not a gray area?

A wrongful arrest, if it's an honest mistake and they mistakenly thought that you had already been given a chance to make restitution and/or amends or dispute the claim against you, but in fact, due to some mix up, had not been given the chance, or mistakenly identified as someone of similar appearance, is not aggression. It would create a liability owed to you, that the arresting party would pay in settlement. If you couldn't agree on the amount, then you would both go to arbitration.

Basically, I view aggression as synonymous with criminal activity. I don't view accidents, honest mistakes and disagreements as criminal, yet they still may incur liability. It's only the deviation from the standard definition that causes confusion and creates these "grey" areas in your own mind, but not in actuallity.
Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

gibson042

  • Non-Aggression Principal since 2006
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
    • gibson.mp
Re: Aggression
« Reply #66 on: April 09, 2007, 12:03:07 AM »

Quote
What about the wrongful arrest scenario?  Force has certainly been used on me.  I was previously a non-participant, so they are not responding to aggression.  They believe they are, so they are not themselves committing aggression by your definition.  How is this not a gray area?

A wrongful arrest, if it's an honest mistake and they mistakenly thought that you had already been given a chance to make restitution and/or amends or dispute the claim against you, but in fact, due to some mix up, had not been given the chance, or mistakenly identified as someone of similar appearance, is not aggression. It would create a liability owed to you, that the arresting party would pay in settlement. If you couldn't agree on the amount, then you would both go to arbitration.

We are in agreement here, except that I still see non-aggressive, non-responsive force.

Quote
Basically, I view aggression as synonymous with criminal activity. I don't view accidents, honest mistakes and disagreements as criminal, yet they still may incur liability.

Understood.  This seems like a semantic impasse; we both want things to function the same way but cannot agree on the definitions that make it all work.  As long as we both remain consistent (which means me ceding the term "aggression" to criminal acts), everything is fine.  Thank you for helping me flesh out my thoughts, and for redeeming this thread.  I have enjoyed it very much.
Logged
"WOOOOOP  WOOOOOP  WOOOOP EH EH EH EH HHHEEEOOOO HEEEOOOOO" —Rillion

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: Aggression
« Reply #67 on: April 09, 2007, 05:07:10 AM »

Quote
What about the wrongful arrest scenario?  Force has certainly been used on me.  I was previously a non-participant, so they are not responding to aggression.  They believe they are, so they are not themselves committing aggression by your definition.  How is this not a gray area?

A wrongful arrest, if it's an honest mistake and they mistakenly thought that you had already been given a chance to make restitution and/or amends or dispute the claim against you, but in fact, due to some mix up, had not been given the chance, or mistakenly identified as someone of similar appearance, is not aggression. It would create a liability owed to you, that the arresting party would pay in settlement. If you couldn't agree on the amount, then you would both go to arbitration.

We are in agreement here, except that I still see non-aggressive, non-responsive force.

I never said it wasn't a use of force. Just that it was an honest mistake that creates a liability, but not aggression.

Quote
Basically, I view aggression as synonymous with criminal activity. I don't view accidents, honest mistakes and disagreements as criminal, yet they still may incur liability.

Quote
Understood.  This seems like a semantic impasse; we both want things to function the same way but cannot agree on the definitions that make it all work.  As long as we both remain consistent (which means me ceding the term "aggression" to criminal acts), everything is fine.  Thank you for helping me flesh out my thoughts, and for redeeming this thread.  I have enjoyed it very much.

The same here. It's a shame that others on this board cannot debate without becoming condescending and uncivil.
Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  Aggression

// ]]>

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 36 queries.