Jinx is a bad-faithed chatter

19:28 infspire
te: Riots and looting are useful at times.
infspire
Unjust systems don't reform through peaceful communication -- a price has to be extracted in order for them to be compelled.
infspire
This is a bad state to be in -- it's why you try to prevent your governments from becoming bad in the first place.
20:08 czarbomba has left IRC (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
Jinx
te: i take issue with your initial statement, which seems to be equating "supporting riots and looting" with being "out and about when this is happening"--these two things are not at all the same
Jinx
and anyone who purports to believe in the notion of freedom (i.e. not a police-state) must acknowledge that you cannot blanket ban "being out and about" simply because of the actions of some people
20:35 Jinx
we don't punish "thoughtcrime" here--nor should we punish "presence-crime"
Jinx
we wait for a crime to be committed and then gather evidence to prove it
Jinx
also: don't conflate people's explanations for why the riots/looting are happening with condoning them--they are not the same
Jinx
(^that's a general admonishment, not just to te)
20:37 Jinx
infspire: i disagree that "unjust systems don't reform through peaceful communication"
Jinx
in a functioning democracy, that's precisely how they reform
Jinx
our government has not devolved into such a "bad state" that we're not functioning
infspire
'Functioning democracy' is not an element of 'unjust systems'.
Jinx
as i think i've said before: i admit we're headed in that direction
Jinx
heh
Jinx
unjust systems can and do exist within functioning democracies
Jinx
you cannot fiat that
infspire
That's not equivalent to what I said.
infspire
I feel you're intentionally missing my nuanced pointed.
Jinx
i.e. you cannot definitionally state that "functioning democracies" are inherently just
Jinx
hm
Jinx
well try again i guess
infspire
There exists very systems of governing people. Some of these systems are 'unjust'. By 'unjust', we mean "do not reform through peaceful communication".
Jinx
i don't think there's a need to imply intention though :)
Jinx
...
infspire
For these systems, using force is necessary.
Jinx
and again
Jinx
it's completely useless to a conversation to simply define your terms as tautologies
Jinx
this is a fallacy of sorts--i can't recall which
infspire
Please show me my tautology.
Jinx
"Unjust systems don't reform through peaceful communication"
Jinx
=>
infspire
That's a definition.
Jinx
"[Systems that do not reform through peaceful communication] don't reform through peaceful communication"
Jinx
replacing the word "Unjust" with your definition
Jinx
a tautology may be true, but it's not saying much :)
infspire
Action X: Using force to compel a system towards an end.
infspire
Set P: All systems of governance.
infspire
Set P_U: A strict subset of P. If you are in P, you can use X.
infspire
How do I know if I am in P_U? Look for "systems that don't reform through peaceful communication".
infspire
Please show me my tautology.
Jinx
i just did
Jinx
your last statement is a new argument entirely :)
infspire
False.
infspire
I'm pretty ready to end this conversation at this point, so we're clear.
Jinx
i.e. "i believe we're in a system that cannot be reformed, because it seems to require using force"
Jinx
go ahead
Jinx
i think i've thoroughly debunked your statements :)
infspire
I am providing you information.
Jinx
exposed* is the better word
infspire
Jinx: Are you aware that definitions in mathematics frequently use the equivalency operator?
infspire
That is, implied in both directions.
infspire
You appear to be leveraging that the implication exists in both directions to indicate a tautology is present.
Jinx
i suggest you set up your argument better the first time next time :)
Jinx
have a good evening
infspire
Jinx: I put you on ignore for 12 months.