>
> From: "Ian Murray" <seamus2001 at attbi.com>
>
>
>
>
> You can't know that apriori, so your counterfactual is vacuous.
^^^^^^ CB: You can't know anything a priori, but you can know based on experience that use of deadly force is the likely only effective defense.
^^^^^
>
>
> ===========================
>
> You completely missed my point regarding when talk of justification
> becomes totally beside the point...................
^^^^^^^^
CB: I completely refuted your argument, and your points....................( see those little points; they're all refuted)
> at.
>
>
> ==========================
>
> Great babble, Charles.
^^^^^^
CB: That babble's in the mind of the beholder.
>
> ^^^^^^
>
> Again you miss the point, which is that violence negates the vocabulary of
> justification. When, in history, have the inaugurators of organized
> violence ever cared, in a platonic, protagorean, humean, kantian pick a
> philosopher-lawyer of your goddam choice, whether what they were doing was
> justified. War is organized murder in an analogous manner that, "no matter
> how you dress them up, profits are uncompensated labor."
^^^^^^
CB: I pick Lenin.
You miss the points that often fire must be met with fire and, that self-defense does not "inaugurate" violence and, that self-defense has fundamental materialist justification as self-preservation and survival. If self-defense has no justification, nothing does. Your category "justified" is vacuous.
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030409/21df5a63/attachment.htm>