Why is the left afraid of Glen Beck?

[Berzerker]

The attacker intrudes, then the victim defends himself by intruding on the attacker. This is so simple that any 5 year-old could understand it.

I'm sorry to hear 4 year olds are writing up the definitions of words at dictionary com. Are 5 year olds capable of using a dictionary? When's yer birthday?

Impose - to thrust oneself offensively upon others; intrude.

shall we now explore the meaning of "thrust" and "offensively"?

[q]Firstly, flight without even attempted bodily harm to the attacker is not generally considered self-defence as far as I know.

Doesn't matter, by running away the victim is denying the attacker's will. You said this

You are imposing your will for them to be dead and you to be alive.

The victim runs away = they denied the will of the attacker and achieved their goal of surviving, to be alive. Are you now saying it is not an imposition on the attacker to deny his will by surviving the attack? Dont matter if the attacker lives or dies, self defense is about the victim's survival.

Secondly, I was referring to a certain type and result of self-defence where the (attempted) victim kills the attacker.

Thats yer mistake, self defense doesn't require killing the attacker.

This action is an imposition on the attacker. The attacker did not ask the victim to be killed.

The attacker is trying to murder the victim, and the victim survives the attack - according to you the victim "imposed" upon the attacker by not dying.

The fact that normal people recognize the legal and moral right of the victim to defend himself in this way has nothing to with whether or not the victim imposed his will on another.

Normal people think they'd be imposing upon a would-be murderer if they defend themselves? Do women who've been the victims of attempted rape say they imposed upon their attacker by resisting? Nonsense, normal people know the word impose refers to someone initiating contact or conflict.

You're seriously like a petulant little child. "Look, when I define terms whatever way I want to then my moral principles sound really simple!"

I'm just trying to explain that the word "impose" does not apply to people acting in self defense. All you got are nasty little insults and a complete willingness to ignore how the dictionary defines the word.

Idiocy like this is the reason more people don't self-identify as libertarian. It's puritanical and dogmatic. You're no better than the commies in this sense.

See? How are you any different for arguing we use your personal definition of the word impose? Well, you are different... We are using the dictionary and you aren't...

[Berzerker]

Which turns the statement of moral principle into a tautology. No ****, that's what I was laughing about.

I'm not claiming that they're inconsistent. Just that they spend their time playing games with definitions, twisting them slightly to fit into their preconceived moral principles.

It's a word game, as far as I'm concerned. It appeals to a certain, very small, very dorky, very verbal segment of the population. And since they're so verbal people like Berz and DF are exactly the type I think of when I think of lolbertarians. Why would you want to identify with this type of individual?

The other thing they tend to do is spend their time listing all the ways that modern governments break the letter/spirit of the US Constitution as originally conceived. Yet another fruitless exercise in "intellectual" masturbation.

This is why I generally think of (especially online) libertarianism as some sort of mild mental defect.

David Floyd and I hadn't posted in the thread before you took off after Elok's GF. You started complaining about how she uses the word "imposition", but she's playing word games? She's using the word correctly according to the dictionary.

Oerdin wants you to take him off yer ignore list and I'm hoping to be put on it

[Berzerker]

You must be having trouble reading, because this is precisely what I'm not making fun of. Analogous to what's gone on so far I'm making fun of somebody who, when pressed on why liberty can be denied to felons, claims that felons don't have any liberty to begin with. Or that they've denied themselves liberty, or something equally specious

Elok's GF aint even here to be pressed... Now, were the Framers guilty of all that because they didn't spell out all the situations under which people may be denied their rights? It aint specious, if I try to murder you, the state has by consent of the governed (includes you) the moral authority to stop me, even if that means my death. Where does that moral authority come from? You, the victim. If you and I are the only people around and you stop me from murdering you, then you have the moral authority to prevent me from trying again, and that includes "jail".

[Berzerker]

In lolbertarian filosufy, they think that only coercive force = force. Self-defense, even armed self-defense does not constitute force.

does not constitute an imposition or initiation

Maybe you can let libertarians speak for themselves, you dont seem too concerned with accuracy.

[Berzerker]

Obviously, in order to succesfully prevent the imposition of your will on me (as an attacker) I have to impose my will on you i.e. defend myself.

This is not obvious to Berz, apparently.

Impose - a. to thrust oneself offensively upon others; intrude.

So women who fend off rapists are intruding upon their attackers? My God yer right, all that time and it was so obvious.

[Berzerker]

Let us also not forget that Washington fully endorsed the Bank of the United States, advocated by his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton. Washington, being more of a Federalist than a Democratic-Republican, endorsed greater federal control.

Did Washington advocate for the govt we have now? The size and scope? So he wanted a natl bank. That does not translate into Washington being a conservative or liberal in today's lingo.

[chequita guevara]

does not constitute an imposition or initiation

Maybe you can let libertarians speak for themselves, you dont seem too concerned with accuracy.

Every lolbertarian until you has used the term "force," not imposition or initiation. Since I've know and talked to lolbertarians for twenty years now, it's not a mistake I'm likely to have made. It may be that lobertarians realized their problem and switched to different words, very recently, but I'm not wrong.

[Berzerker]

Actually, Kitty and I were discussing libertarians redefining words, when you chimed in, proving my point.

I chimed in when KH went after Elok's GF for using the word imposition, and KH and I have been debating the meaning of the word impose. You chimed in after that debate was underway with a rant about libertarians defining words blah blah blah. KH was the one doing that... Neither of you seem concerned with how the dictionary actually defines the word. But we're the ones changing the meaning of words? BS

I don't care. I think definition fights are stupid. If you want to use that definition, go ahead. I'm not gonna argue about it.

Then dont smear people with that BS. If KH is gonna accuse someone of hypocrisy, or inconsistency, or whatever sin he's imagined, the burden of proof is on him and not even you should let him get away with redefining words to support his argument, the very thing he (and you) accused us of doing.

[Berzerker]

Every lolbertarian until you has used the term "force," not imposition or initiation. Since I've know and talked to lolbertarians for twenty years now, it's not a mistake I'm likely to have made. It may be that lobertarians realized their problem and switched to different words, very recently, but I'm not wrong.

Elok's GF used imposition. Why dont you support her instead of posting a rant that doesn't apply to her, or to me, or to Floyd (I'm sure he has used that distinction). And the LP platform says the initiation of force, it has since I remember joining in the 90s. I've never heard a libertarian (or anyone) argue that armed resistance isn't force. Can you quote these libertarians?

[KrazyHorse]

at Berz and sad little orangesodaman

[KrazyHorse]

Having a discussion with you is like trying to run through corn syrup.

QFT

I was quite proud of that. Thanks.

[notyoueither]

You're losing.

[TCO]

Club for growth is a small-gov type org within repubs who tries to rid the party of RINOs. They managed to kick out Wayne Gilchrest in the primary, only to have their man Andy Harris lose to Dem Frank Kratovil in a squeaker, in a traditionally Repub area.

Good. The **** **** war has not even started. I have not yet begun to cut my nose off.

[KrazyHorse]

You're losing.

[KrazyHorse]

Good. The **** **** war has not even started. I have not yet begun to cut my nose off.

Don't understand what the stars are.