Message from @RyeNorth

Discord ID: 465745821053485076


2018-07-09 05:00:06 UTC  

lemme pull up the list

2018-07-09 05:00:13 UTC  

And many take it to a really far level\

2018-07-09 05:00:30 UTC  

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/398973785426100234/465744034355478528/File49.jpg

2018-07-09 05:00:36 UTC  

lol

2018-07-09 05:00:59 UTC  

LOL at the Dem

2018-07-09 05:01:09 UTC  

Like to the point that I've seen people seriously argue that glasses shouldn't exist and that it's fine if people with poor vision died as a result of it because it would improve the gene pool

2018-07-09 05:01:19 UTC  

The joke is

2018-07-09 05:01:31 UTC  

the joke is politics

2018-07-09 05:01:38 UTC  

At the point you try to intervene, the outcome becomes your responsibility.

2018-07-09 05:01:47 UTC  

Thus, violating the NAP.

2018-07-09 05:02:36 UTC  

in some cases that is true... because you can wrecklessly intervene such as in car accidents where you may potentially inflict further damage on someone with broken bone, severe internal injuries, etc

2018-07-09 05:03:02 UTC  

not necessarily violating the NAP tho, bcuz a lot of it stems from intent

2018-07-09 05:03:08 UTC  

The trolley test is essentially a 'Kobayashi Maru'

2018-07-09 05:03:19 UTC  

There's not a scenario that is a 'win'.

2018-07-09 05:03:25 UTC  

yeah

2018-07-09 05:03:46 UTC  

And in the wise words of Rush, If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

2018-07-09 05:04:39 UTC  

because aggression means essentially initiation of force will malicious or threatening intent as far as im concerned

2018-07-09 05:06:07 UTC  

The tricky part to having a principle such as the NAP as the sole standard though is that any moral pillar can be perverted to become something it's not meant to be.

2018-07-09 05:06:35 UTC  

ya but he cannot be held responsible for doing nothing ... especially if hes like hyperventalating from the situation and stuf.... he could simple just be frozen in fear and shock ... wouldnt be able to blame him for not doing something either if it wasnt his responsibility to begin with

2018-07-09 05:07:29 UTC  

well itd be hell of a lot better and more clear and definitive than some foggy nebular, fluffly social contract

2018-07-09 05:07:36 UTC  

I mean, in a way, yes.

2018-07-09 05:08:06 UTC  

That's the joke. He cannot be held responsible for doing nothing, so he chooses to do nothing because otherwise he could be held accountable

2018-07-09 05:08:06 UTC  

social contract can mean literally anything.... NAP means non-aggression principle

2018-07-09 05:08:15 UTC  

It *is* a joke afterall

2018-07-09 05:08:20 UTC  

The NAP IS a social contract.

2018-07-09 05:09:00 UTC  

If it's an order by which people live and die, whether they've agreed to it or not, it's a social contract.

2018-07-09 05:09:24 UTC  

i could agree with that.... but it could be enforced more easily and also actually be codified into the foundations of actual valid, explicit social contracts too

2018-07-09 05:10:28 UTC  

so we can replace the foggy idea of a social contract with the NAP ... and then current contract laws/conventions, explicit legal contracts, etc are layered on top of that

2018-07-09 05:10:52 UTC  

What's so foggy about the current paradigm?

2018-07-09 05:11:26 UTC  

whats foggy about a non-existent contract? a contract that can literally change w/o you even knowing it?

2018-07-09 05:11:43 UTC  

Your proposition is to change one non-existent contract with another.

2018-07-09 05:11:50 UTC  

kind of self-evident

2018-07-09 05:12:18 UTC  

no, just a very vague idea with a more definitive one

2018-07-09 05:13:22 UTC  

The NAP as a single pillar is actually far more vague than you seem to think.

2018-07-09 05:13:42 UTC  

It's one of those concepts that works well on paper, but in practice...

2018-07-09 05:13:43 UTC  

the NAP is already pretty much illegal to break .... except for many "protected" classes of people like police currently etc who can freely break it w/ impunity

2018-07-09 05:13:53 UTC  

its not a pillar but a foundation

2018-07-09 05:14:17 UTC  

nor singular either. .... itd be like a software stack... the NAP the bottom most layer and everything else on top of it

2018-07-09 05:15:04 UTC  

Alright, let's disect 'protected classes'.

2018-07-09 05:15:25 UTC  

nobody says (at least not me) the NAP and ONLY the NAP ..... maybe some fringey elements would advocate for that ... fact is that ppl can agree to be governed in a private system of law

2018-07-09 05:15:46 UTC  

A private system of law...?