jhuffman comments on Uncritical Supercriticality - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (159)
:) I did know that I was responding to an ancient response... but I had thought that Caledonian may still be lurking about this site...
In a way my response was more to point out the problem with what he said - than to actually request a specific response from him. If somebody else came along later and happened to agree with Caledonian, they might point out evidence that would support his claim... thus I figured it was worth posting anyway.
We keep being told to comment regardless of how old the posts are... and this is why.
Nah - that's the wrong tack. I'm sure there are things where violence could be a positive response. But the claim made was that there are things for which the necessary response is violence... as though for certain situations, only violence will work.
Perhaps there are such situations.. but Caledonian did not even give examples, let alone evidence to support his claim... Thus my reaction.
I'd argue that there are vanishingly few situations in which the only possible solution is violence... but, as I stated, would welcome evidence/discussion to the contrary.
You may be right, but I wanted to point out that I think that violent repression of speech is an accepted part of common law and is an available remedy in the United States and other countries based on English common law. Civil actions related to libel and slander ultimately carry a threat of violence by the state in recovering judgments found against someone in a civil court; you never see it actually happen, and often judgments are not collected at all but it is completely possible you could be found in contempt or have a lien against property that eventually results in an arrest warrant.