• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Report shows how recession hit families [W:391, 502]

my friend? I contend
it is the only problem

whatever happened to the shining city on a hill?
hah even typing that make me feel silly
it sound so quaint now does it not?
 
A person such as you describe is not initiating aggression* against anyone.

Yes they are as it is THEIR OWN ACTIONS IN BREAKING THE LAW which begins their own downfall.
 
Yes they are as it is THEIR OWN ACTIONS IN BREAKING THE LAW which begins their own downfall.

No, they aren't the first ones to use aggression. They aren't violating or damaging another person's body, and they are not trespassing upon, damaging, or taking something owned by another.

As I said right off the bat, you favor policies in which the government initiates aggression* against society. That's how I knew whatever solution you supported would involve the initiation of aggression* against others. You continue to prove that my assessment of your position was spot on.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.
 
No, they aren't the first ones to use aggression. They aren't violating or damaging another person's body, and they are not trespassing upon, damaging, or taking something owned by another.

As I said right off the bat, you favor policies in which the government initiates aggression* against society. That's how I knew whatever solution you supported would involve the initiation of aggression* against others. You continue to prove that my assessment of your position was spot on.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.

Can you name me one stable government in one functioning nation on the earth that does not engage in what you would label as this silly "initiation of aggression against others"?
 
the two best offenders that come to mind in recent history
Stalin's Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
and Mao's Great Leap Forward
 
No, they aren't the first ones to use aggression. They aren't violating or damaging another person's body, and they are not trespassing upon, damaging, or taking something owned by another.

They knowingly and willingly break the law of the land and in doing that it is they who initiate the actions that result in their punishment.
 
They knowingly and willingly break the law of the land and in doing that it is they who initiate the actions that result in their punishment.

Right. So you agree that they are not the first ones to use aggression. It is the government that is the first one to use aggression.
 
Can you name me one stable government in one functioning nation on the earth that does not engage in what you would label as this silly "initiation of aggression against others"?

No. That s the nature of governments. They initiate aggression*. That's what distinguishes them from non-governments.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.
 
Right. So you agree that they are not the first ones to use aggression. It is the government that is the first one to use aggression.

It is the lawbreaker who begins the process with their crime. They are the one who initiate the process.
 
No. That s the nature of governments. They initiate aggression*. That's what distinguishes them from non-governments.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.

So you admit that there is no functioning nation on the planet who does not engage in what you label as "initiation of aggression against others".

Can you point to any governments in history which had a functioning government which did not engage in what you label as "initiation of aggression against others"?
 
Who is "the lawbreaker"? And what are their crimes?

A lawbreaker is anyone who breaks the law. Their crime is whatever law they have broken. I would have thought that is fairly self evident. :doh:roll:
 
A lawbreaker is anyone who breaks the law. Their crime is whatever law they have broken. I would have thought that is fairly self evident. :doh:roll:

Oh for God's sake! :doh Do we have to play this game? Just answer the question...You are throwing out the term as if you have someone specific in mind, I am asking who that is....
 
It is the lawbreaker who begins the process with their crime. They are the one who initiate the process.

Yes, we agree. They start the process, and the government responds with the first use of aggression*.

This is the system I predicted many posts ago that you would support. You support the state initiating, ie. being the first user of, aggression.
 
So you admit that there is no functioning nation on the planet who does not engage in what you label as "initiation of aggression against others".

Can you point to any governments in history which had a functioning government which did not engage in what you label as "initiation of aggression against others"?

Can I point to any initiator of aggression that didn't engage in the initiation of aggression?
 
Oh for God's sake! :doh Do we have to play this game? Just answer the question...You are throwing out the term as if you have someone specific in mind, I am asking who that is....

How can it be explained any clearer so you will understand. A person breaks the law of the land is a lawbreaker. The crime is whatever law they have broken.

What is so difficult about this to understand for you?

I taught Government for 33 years and even the slowest kid in class could comprehend that rather simple concept.
 
Can I point to any initiator of aggression that didn't engage in the initiation of aggression?

What does that nonsense have to do with my question to you?

Originally Posted by haymarket
So you admit that there is no functioning nation on the planet who does not engage in what you label as "initiation of aggression against others".

Can you point to any governments in history which had a functioning government which did not engage in what you label as "initiation of aggression against others"?
 
ah hah no wonder yer a commie, [sic] pubic school no doubt
 
Yes, we agree. They start the process, and the government responds with the first use of aggression*.

This is the system I predicted many posts ago that you would support. You support the state initiating, ie. being the first user of, aggression.

That is ridiculous. If I come up to you and your family in a public place and start calling your wife every foul name in the book and going into great detail about the sexual things I will do to her and you haul off an punch me in the mouth - who is it that started the confrontation and who is it responsible for the punch?
 
That is ridiculous. If I come up to you and your family in a public place and start calling your wife every foul name in the book and going into great detail about the sexual things I will do to her and you haul off an punch me in the mouth - who is it that started the confrontation and who is it responsible for the punch?

I would be initiating aggression against you. The peaceful solution would simply be for the owner or manager of the property to eject you due to your inappropriate behavior.
 
The cops would be laughing their asses off when they heard how after I knocked you down my wife tazed you in the balls?
 
Back
Top Bottom