[MD] NAP

[blue-jay maple]

> Nick previously:
> So far nobody has persuaded me to abandon the NAP and
> go out and maximize conflict and initiate violence.
> So I will continue to stick with the NAP and my pursuit will
> continue to be to minimize conflict.
> But I know everybody is trying to persuade me to abandon the
> NAP as something non-MOQ.  But I don't think the a Quality
> effort is to commit violence and go and murder and steal from
> people.  I know it is not.  But blindly people are trying
> to prove I should maximize conflict.
> It's sad that this forum advocates such physical violence.
 
> Ron:
> Nick no one is questioning the idea of non aggression, what I think 
> we do question is your reasoning and justification. Calling those that do not 
> agree with your methods of attaining peace "murders and theives" rings of 
> religous dogmatism.

Nick:
Ok, I'm against murder and theft and so you question why?  and call it religious 
dogmatism?

Ron:
> Absolute either/or arguements rarely yield truly peaceful conditions.

Nick:
Non-sequintar, unless you mean murder is good?  Ron think about this, please.  You 
people are freakin' scarin' me.

Ron:
> I can't speak for the rest but I'm not against NAP but I'm not for 
> one persons idea of peace at any means either.

Nick:
I'm saying HOW to get peace other than be peaceful.  HOW to be peaceful 
is a whole other topic and we may casually disagree on topics, but since 
we are being peaceful about it in our discussion on HOW to be peaceful, well, 
I think that's a good start.

Ron:
> You present contradictory arguements which makes it hard to understand how
> you hope to arrive at NAP socially, or how to understand the reasoning  less
> "physical coercian is evil".

Nick:
Please state the "contradictory arguments".  I think since this is new to most folks 
here it strikes them as confusing, but peace is really quite simple.  Have you ever killed 
anybody?  I haven't.  I don't think you have out of aggression.  Self-defense is a whole 
other issue so I'm not talking about that in this paragraph.

Ron:
> Because that is primarily your arguement and that those that 
> disagree with this statement must be evil and violent.

Nick:
For me to advocate no murder and stealing and people to disagree with that - Then what 
in the world are they advocating?  Deduction:  to murder and steal.  I don't want to bring 
up the government cause that's too much for people to handle.  So I'm keeping this 
to a simple murder, theft discussion.

Ron:
> Physical coercion does not necessarily mean violence. One may 
> coerce with pleasure also.

NIck:
No Ron.  To initiate physical coercion means in the strictest sense violence, not sex.  
Initiating physical coercion is not voluntary.  It's against ones liberty, their free-will.  I've 
never said otherwise.  Sex that is against ones liberty is called rape.  I am not being 
arbitrary about my definitions.  This is what this has meant for ages.


Nick


-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com