Ed$ wrote on 10-10-09: "You continue to pound on Jon about 'blaming the victims' when he has done nothing of the sort."
Jon wrote on 9-27-09: "The people generally are to blame." [No translation needed here.] Jon wrote on 9-27-09: "One can't blame officials you voted for for what they might do to you." [Translation: She can't blame the husband she married for abuses he might do to her. OR: Since she married him, it's her fault if he abuses her.] Jon wrote on 9-27-09: "If they don't put in the time needed to prevent tyranny then they earn it by their negligence, just as people who don't put in enough time to earn the money to pay for food or shelter earn starvation or homelessness." [Translation: If you fail to prevent others from initiating aggression against you, it's just as much your fault as if you fail to feed yourself.] [Come on Ed, I've rarely seen such blatant misplaced blame.] Ed$ wrote on 10-10-09: "Indeed, you can be blamed for the same thing in that you 'blame' the victims for not instituting anarchy." [Not true. We are simply blaming the aggressors for the aggression (and blaming the act of blaming victims). And you can't "institute" anarchy any more than you can institute the elimination of drug prohibition. You don't "institute" elimination; you simply eliminate. But in order to do that, you first have to address the problem that needs eliminating and advocate for it (you know, like we are doing NOW).] Ed$ wrote on 10-10-09: "You are both just describing reasons and reality and it is unfair to attack Jon in such a way." [We are not "attacking Jon". We are attacking his argument/claims, which is entirely fair.] Ed$ wrote on 10-10-09: "That's a tactic that indicates you really don't have a good argument and are just indulging in rhetoric." [It's not a "tactic" at all, and I think the arguments against your and Jon's claims are pretty well-based.] -----------------
