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...
Gene, I wonder if Progressives are literally going out of their minds with respect to reason. I have argued with many of them - from 'regulars' to professional philosophers - and they seem completely immune to reason. I'm not making this up. It is as if the left is disintegrating into pure madness.
ReplyDeleteWell, her position that a sex change operation is "violence" seems a little oit there.
ReplyDeleteTaking a knife and cutting off someone's willie is not violent?!
DeleteOf course it's not! Surgery is not violent. If it were, then amputations should also be called violence as well.
DeleteIt is perfectly reasonable to disagree about whether or not transgender people have truly changed their gender, Gene (my opinion is that of a third way). It is really wacky, though, to call the operation violent. "Mutilation" or "defacement" are labels I think are wrong, too, but they seem within sanity. Greer's comment makes her sound like a nutty person (again, the part about violence).
ReplyDelete