I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
I'm very confused; "cis" and "trans" are antonyms in the context of gender.
ReplyDeleteShonk: Well, yes, formally, they are antonyms everywhere; my point is that in the context of gender it gets a bit confusing.
ReplyDeleteI'm certainly confused, though not, I think, but what these words actually mean. A cissexual is someone who identifies as a gender which matches their genetic sex; a transsexual is someone who identifies as a gender which does not match their genetic sex. So how do these "mean pretty much the same thing", exactly?
ReplyDeleteProblem with discussion brought to the forum just because they are confusion is that they are, and the participants, are confused. I'm going to lie down.
Delete