Exactly which logical fallacy is that and why and how does it apply? You are an anarchist, and now you're telling me that you won't tell me what to think, as if I asked your opinion or thoughts, when I asked to explain how are you a part of a aggression tolerant society while being for Zero tolerance to aggression, exactly what you denied even though you clearly dedicated an article to, which begins with I am an anarchist, hilariously though you'd sooner deny that and deny any kind of principle, especially reason, because you avail to consider that someone querying you for your opinion or thoughts means they have availed themselves of sovereignty, and next youll tell me that I implied for you to tell me what or how to think and accuse me of whatever implications conveniently avoiding the obvious question: how can you be for Zero Aggression Principle (I'll call you aggression intolerant) in a society that is tolerant of aggression?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I've dealt with you before..before you changed your screenname.
think what you want to think.
I'm not making an argument.
I'm merely stating a fact.
I AM an anarchist.
You're being very rude and combative.
Let's say we are slaves when slavery of the africans was still around.
And I as a slave said to you as a slave : I believe in the zero slavery principle.
would you ask me then;
How can you be for zero slavery principle on a slave plantage?
Do you see how that can be possible. And If more and more slaves woke up to the fact that they ought not to be slaves ( because more and more stated that they are not slaves) that slavery would end. Of course action would be needed. But everything starts with people saying it's wrong I will not cooperate, or get around, or try to escape, that system
You do know that the zero aggression principle is not a pacifistic stance?
Because you say:
This is absolutely no true If you think this is what the zero aggression principle is or means you don't understand it.
First, to make something clear, if you defend yourself against an attacker ,aggresor (the one initiating violence) you are not the initiator of violence (you are not an attacker or agressor), you defend yourself.
You may defend yourself against those who attack you. I would even say I must, where I can, defend myself (and eventual others) against the state aggressors and other aggressors or aggressions.
This can have many different forms.
(defending is not aggressing)
I'm not convincing the slave owner that would be ridiculous.
I'm trying to get through to the other slaves that think they ought to be slaves.
It's a bit like being born in a giant cult. If you want to take a aim at destroying the cult it would not help to convince the cult leaders, they do not believe their own story (well maybe they do but that's not the point), you try to deprogram the cult members,
the believers, if no one believe the BS of the cult leaders there is no cult.