Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Force is Unreasonable, still
Message-ID: <840@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Dec-85 16:58:32 EST
Article-I.D.: mmintl.840
Posted: Wed Dec  4 16:58:32 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Dec-85 21:50:06 EST
References: <1497@hound.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 18


In article <1497@hound.UUCP> rwsh@hound.UUCP (R.STUBBLEFIELD) writes:
>What is the epistemological status of the whim of the threatener?  Where is
>its tie to reality?  Are all products of consciousness equivalent?  Are whims
>the same as reason?  Can the threatener survive on whims without you?
>You know that your own emotions do not give you truth.  Why should someone
>else's emotions do so?

Why do you assume that another person's resort to force is based on whim?
It may equally be based on his exercize of reason.  Why, then, cannot he
use argument to convince you instead of force?  Because his reasons are based
on his objective desires (such as his desire to continue living), which you
do not necessarily share.

You give reasons for not wanting others to use force against you, but none
whatsoever for not using force against others.

Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108