Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Recommended Posts

How can you apply logic to Aggression.

On 5/18/2018 at 11:22 PM, smarterthanone said:

Here are four scenarios... which do you consider aggression?

1. I see Jim, who is married, kiss some woman at a bar, in public. It was Tuesday night and quiet, so nobody really saw. I tell Jim to give me $50 to pay my bar tab or else I will tell his wife, who will cause trouble and/or leave him.

2. I knock on Mark's door, he answers it wearing a red shirt and jeans. I tell Mark, if you don't give me $50, I will tell everyone you wore a red shirt and jeans.

3. Same as situation #1 except HOWEVER they happen to be in an open relationship but I do not know that.

4. Same as situation #1 except I just don't ask for the money. I simply tell his wife for the purpose of seeing him get in trouble. (Not because I think she deserves to know).

 

There is an implied change in your counter question, from my initial question "How can you apply logic to Aggression." As a subject applying logic to their own aggression, with imperfect information. Which I would say they can't. The best they can do, is rationalise with statistics. Maybe they could apply a commandment (thou shalt not covet), in order to do that there has to be an external observer i.e God or reflective self. But, what if coveting is weakness, perhaps one should not covet purely out of that. I used the word commandment as was trying to avoid using the word morality.

To

"How can I apply logic to Aggression" as an impartial informed observer. With Perfect Information, but incomplete knowledge.

---

All of them are potentially aggression to an outside observer.

1. Extorting money.
2. Acting like a lunatic.Intimidation potentially.
3. Extorting money.
4. Trying to break up a marriage.

What I'm getting at is applying logic to the motivation behind the aggression. Whether to be Moral no matter what "I have the High ground", operate along some form of statistics, "What is good for mans life is good for man.", game theory, or just go nuts; maybe look for an outlet for aggression "what makes the grass grow, blood blood blood." 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my two cents, but:

1. The person who is being blackmailed is hiding truth, usually of their own actions or those of a relative or something. Not only for yourself, but for the principle of truth (which is necessary in a free society), you should not be giving someone something to extort you with. If someone is threatening you with a lie, prepare for the lie, as they're giving you a warning, and there's a good chance they'll throw the lie, anyway.

2. The person committing the extortion obviously isn't worried about truth, or they'd just say the truth without the threats. This is indicative of dishonesty on their part, thus it would be wise not to trust them on not releasing the blackmail, anyway, since they could be lying about their willingness not to tell the truth, if they're able to avoid telling the truth to begin with.

 

While i'm sure there are situations that we may feel are unfair, such as "my father was a member of organization X," and this may somehow put you in a spot with organization Y, if it's truly unfair, arguments should be made against organization Y or organization Y's arguments in regards to fairness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, RichardY said:

How can you apply logic to Aggression.

 

There is an implied change in your counter question, from my initial question "How can you apply logic to Aggression." As a subject applying logic to their own aggression, with imperfect information. Which I would say they can't. The best they can do, is rationalise with statistics. Maybe they could apply a commandment (thou shalt not covet), in order to do that there has to be an external observer i.e God or reflective self. But, what if coveting is weakness, perhaps one should not covet purely out of that. I used the word commandment as was trying to avoid using the word morality.

 To

"How can I apply logic to Aggression" as an impartial informed observer. With Perfect Information, but incomplete knowledge.

 ---

 All of them are potentially aggression to an outside observer.

1. Extorting money.
2. Acting like a lunatic.Intimidation potentially.
 3. Extorting money.
4. Trying to break up a marriage.

What I'm getting at is applying logic to the motivation behind the aggression. Whether to be Moral no matter what "I have the High ground", operate along some form of statistics, "What is good for mans life is good for man.", game theory, or just go nuts; maybe look for an outlet for aggression "what makes the grass grow, blood blood blood." 

 

 

 

You are making them all aggression in your mind. See my post above about the definition of extortion. Extortion means specifically when you threaten violence. Like "Pay me or I will kill you.". None of my examples had any threat to violence and you still view them as extortion. I think you are just mixed up on the concepts and no useful discussion can be had until we accept the terms we are going to use. If you don't like the definition of extortion, that's fine, argue what you think it should be in the terms of our discussion and why.

You also think asking him to pay to not say you saw him in a shirt and jeans is being a lunatic and intimidation. I fear you have been extorted before and are just assuming some 6'5" 300lb muscle guy with a gun and 2 other guys behind him is the one making the requested and giving you a little wink like im about to beat you. Nope, you are making your own embellishments. Pretend your 8 year old daughter is making the request. Do you find her intimidating? I hope not. The point was, most people would be like, "I dont care, tell whoever you want i wear a shirt and jeans, big whoop".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

You are making them all aggression in your mind. See my post above about the definition of extortion. Extortion means specifically when you threaten violence. Like "Pay me or I will kill you.". None of my examples had any threat to violence and you still view them as extortion. I think you are just mixed up on the concepts and no useful discussion can be had until we accept the terms we are going to use. If you don't like the definition of extortion, that's fine, argue what you think it should be in the terms of our discussion and why.

You also think asking him to pay to not say you saw him in a shirt and jeans is being a lunatic and intimidation. I fear you have been extorted before and are just assuming some 6'5" 300lb muscle guy with a gun and 2 other guys behind him is the one making the requested and giving you a little wink like im about to beat you. Nope, you are making your own embellishments. Pretend your 8 year old daughter is making the request. Do you find her intimidating? I hope not. The point was, most people would be like, "I dont care, tell whoever you want i wear a shirt and jeans, big whoop".

From Google Extortionthe practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

The onus should be on you to prove why the threat has to be violent, given standard definitions. The threat could be of a psychological nature, such as extorting old people for money, for home or vehicle maintenance. 

As I said, incomplete knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, RichardY said:

From Google Extortionthe practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

The onus should be on you to prove why the threat has to be violent, given standard definitions. The threat could be of a psychological nature, such as extorting old people for money, for home or vehicle maintenance. 

 As I said, incomplete knowledge.

I would highly recommend not using Googles definition. They also define fascism as right wing.

So you are defining blackmail and extortion to be the same thing basically? There are obviously two distinct forms of this kind of thing. One where "I will kill you if you don't pay me" vs "I know you cheat on your wife, ill tell her if you don't pay me". So if you define them as the same thing, then we have no terms to talk about each type now do we? This is why I highly suggest we use the american legal definitions. Extortion being when threat of force is used and blackmail is only threat of releasing information.

And I would say the onus is on you on why we ought to use a cripplingly basic definition from google instead of the accepted and nuanced legal definitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The person who is being blackmailed is hiding truth, usually of their own actions or those of a relative or something. Not only for yourself, but for the principle of truth (which is necessary in a free society)

This is false. There are a lot of cases where you legitimately and morally don't want the truth to come out. Say you intend to buy a lot of shares. Then you have a legitimate interest not to let that be known.
In a truly free ancap society you can purchase insurance against blackmail. How the private company deals with the blackmailer is their problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, smarterthanone said:

I would highly recommend not using Googles definition. They also define fascism as right wing.

So you are defining blackmail and extortion to be the same thing basically? There are obviously two distinct forms of this kind of thing. One where "I will kill you if you don't pay me" vs "I know you cheat on your wife, ill tell her if you don't pay me". So if you define them as the same thing, then we have no terms to talk about each type now do we? This is why I highly suggest we use the american legal definitions. Extortion being when threat of force is used and blackmail is only threat of releasing information.

And I would say the onus is on you on why we ought to use a cripplingly basic definition from google instead of the accepted and nuanced legal definitions.

The basic premise is that YOU asserted that blackmail did not violate the NAP. I said that it did. But  if you want to use a legal definition from dictionary.law.com 

Blackmail 

n. the crime of threatening to reveal embarrassing, disgraceful or damaging facts (or rumors) about a person to the public, family, spouse or associates unless paid off to not carry out the threat. It is one form of extortion (which may include other threats such as physical harm or damage to property).

Extortion

n. obtaining money or property by threat to a victim's property or loved ones, intimidation, or false claim of a right (such as pretending to be an IRS agent). It is a felony in all states, except that a direct threat to harm the victim is usually treated as the crime of robbery. Blackmail is a form of extortion in which the threat is to expose embarrassing, damaging information to family, friends or the public.

On 5/15/2018 at 2:36 PM, smarterthanone said:

I see you have it mixed up, you are going back and forth talking about two different things. There is something called BLACKMAIL, which is when you know a secret about someone and you threaten to reveal it. And there is something called EXTORTION which is when you make a threat of violence to coerce someone. Blackmail does not violate the NAP, extortion does violate the NAP.

Also, I wouldn't assume blackmail has violated anyone, the simplest blackmail is something that you clearly did not violate someone. ie You work in an office and your boss send you an email by mistake because your name is christian@company.com and he sends an email on company time to christina@company.com about his affair. Now you can go to HR, his wife, or just talk about it to anyone, you aren't necessarily obligated or not obligated to do anything with the information. (Is it right to tell his wife to protect her from STDs and other issues, is it right to be loyal to your boss and not say, is it right to go to HR because they ought to be aware, there is no clear answer)

My point is, that as a threat is aggression, blackmail violates the NAP. The payoff for blackmail does not have to be renumerative(as in pure extortion), it can be psychological.

 

Oxford. Aggression; 1Feelings of anger or antipathy resulting in hostile or violent behaviour; readiness to attack or confront.

Cambridge. Aggression; spoken or physical behaviour that is threatening or involves harm to someone or something

Websters.  Aggression; : a forceful action or procedure (such as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RichardY said:

The basic premise is that YOU asserted that blackmail did not violate the NAP. I said that it did. But  if you want to use a legal definition from dictionary.law.com 

Blackmail 

n. the crime of threatening to reveal embarrassing, disgraceful or damaging facts (or rumors) about a person to the public, family, spouse or associates unless paid off to not carry out the threat. It is one form of extortion (which may include other threats such as physical harm or damage to property).

Extortion

n. obtaining money or property by threat to a victim's property or loved ones, intimidation, or false claim of a right (such as pretending to be an IRS agent). It is a felony in all states, except that a direct threat to harm the victim is usually treated as the crime of robbery. Blackmail is a form of extortion in which the threat is to expose embarrassing, damaging information to family, friends or the public.

My point is, that as a threat is aggression, blackmail violates the NAP. The payoff for blackmail does not have to be renumerative(as in pure extortion), it can be psychological.

 

Oxford. Aggression; 1Feelings of anger or antipathy resulting in hostile or violent behaviour; readiness to attack or confront.

Cambridge. Aggression; spoken or physical behaviour that is threatening or involves harm to someone or something

Websters.  Aggression; : a forceful action or procedure (such as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master

I know what you are saying with those definitions. Unfortunately it is a grey area. Look up 20 definitions in 20 places and you will see different ones on each. If you read enough, you will see, many draw the distinction between information vs violence. But either way.

You equate a threat with violence. Or a threat with aggression. Such that is a violation of the NAP. Unfortunately the word aggression also has two meanings here and threat isn't necessarily a violation of the NAP. Would you say playing football aggressively is a violation of the NAP? I mean we are assuming everyone has agreed to the rules and is playing fairly. What about building your business aggressively instead of growing slower and safer? Is that a violation of the NAP? No.

Threatening someone may or may not be aggressive and being aggressive may or may not be violation of NAP.

What if you come to my business and are rude. What if I THREATEN to ban you from service? That is not a violation of the NAP. It is clearly a threat, and I could be aggressive about it. Aggressively threaten ban at a minor infraction of my business rules.

The whole point I am saying is to threaten someone with violence is clearly against the NAP. No doubt about it. So no need to even talk about that any more. We agree there. But the problem I am having is that adding money to an acceptable act can never make it a violation of NAP.

Is it NAP moral to mow your lawn? Yes. For money? Yes.

Is it NAP moral to have sex? Yes. For money? Yes.

Is it NAP moral to tell the truth, that you saw someones husband making out with someone else at a bar? Yes. For money? Yes.

Is it NAP moral to not tell that you saw someones husband making out with someone else at the bar? Yes. For money? Yes.

 

If you are saying that is not ok, realize you are making an exception to a big big big aspect of the NAP in general. Why is adding money to a moral act make it immoral under NAP? Money is not a moral factor under the NAP.

People feel a bit icky about money though, its your intuition. Just like with the example about sex. As much as it is NAP moral, people intuitively still do not like to say prostitution is moral under NAP. Or they do but they don't like it.

I think big picture, it means probably either:

1. We were raised with cultural norms that are not moral. (ie raised with such an aversion to blackmail that no matter how well it fits the framework, it always triggers your intuition as not moral because of money)

2. NAP is not a complete understanding of morals. (ie. NAP is pretty good but it is not 100% right)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The presentation of facts has a certain incontestable truth, because the subjective factor is excluded and the facts speak for themselves. Similarly, the representing of the unknowable has also an immediate, subjective, and convincing power, because it is demonstrable from its own existence. The former says ' Est, ergo est ' (' It is ; therefore it is ') ; while the latter says ' Cogito, ergo cogito ' (' I think ; therefore I think '). In the last analysis, introverted thinking arrives at the evidence of its own subjective being, while extraverted thinking is driven to the evidence of its complete identity with the objective fact For, while the extravert really denies himself in his complete dispersion among 
objects, the introvert, by ridding himself of each and every content, has to content himself with his mere existence.

Carl G Jung - Psychological Types

Might be because our modes of thinking or approach are different. A = A, Est ergo est (It is; therefore it is) Aristotlian law of identity. Or a more subjective line of thinking in my case Cogito, ergo Cogito (I think; therefore I think.) A then B. "Nietzschean" form of thinking.

------------------
@smarterthanone

Yes of course if someone engages in an activity such as football or boxing. It would be wrong to consider it aggression per se. I mean if Mike Tyson pummeled a novice in an exhibition match ala Rocky 4, I would consider that aggression. Even if the violence would be suspect.....

Which is why I have a problem with the Non Aggression Principle. If it were non violence I think most people would agree. But using a purely violent interpretation of the word, is bad form I think. Not that my form is necessarily good, but still.

I'm interested in the primitive implications of aggression. The primordial aspects that are taken as self evident, rather than proved in a court of law, but speak to motivation.


1) Yes not just cultural, but psychological as well.

2) So instead of morals an equivalent of a kantian "Goodwill" could be the case. Which would be amorality. Although speculating in general. I mean there's the whole self ownership thing in UPB. Taxation is theft etc. I think UPB is superior to the NAP. Though interested in hearing other ideas. If morality has psychological benefits I think it has appeal, but doing it purely for greed. So maybe can't be moral, perhaps purely a deferal of gratifcation thing. So maybe below a certain IQ range a person can't be moral, maybe above is also the case. Though to be beyond Good and Evil according to Jung is evidence of a sick mind. I still considers things to be evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.