On 11/16/2016 11:05 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > What's being asked for (and no, I have no easy answers either), is how > do we transition whilst minimizing interim aggression. > > Eggs-ack-ly. > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 01:48:46AM -0300, Juan wrote: >> On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 23:28:21 -0500 >> grarpamp <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Razer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> [?] >>> Well, those are the practical everyday questions people >>> like Juan refuse to answer and explain the potential >>> workings >> >> That is not how it works =) A few points in no particular >> order : >> >> a) I am under no obligation to explain anything >> >> b) there are TONS of literature dealing with political >> philosophy >> >> c) utilitarianism is a joke >> >> d) at any rate, it's aggressors who should be doing the >> explaining. People who support the state's authority should >> provide the 'rational' basis for their obey-or-die 'philosophy' > Ack. > >>> of to people who might then vote for his nobodys. >>> If you want a vote you have to put it in everyday practical terms. >>> No offense to the Juans's out there, just saying. >> No problem. I just explained why it's a mistake to demand >> explanations =P > Problem is, we're not starting from a blank slate. > > We have aggressors, carrying guns, extorting money, as our starting > point. > > What's being asked for (and no, I have no easy answers either), is how > do we transition whilst minimizing interim aggression. > > And no, neither your nor nobody is obliged to answer that question. > There's merely a hope that we might find a sane pathway out of this > mess we are collectively in. > > Good luck,
