Culture and Respect

[kılıç_mehmet]

Meaning, that I do reserve the right to impose that view. It is my right, and its right to do so.
Who is to tell me that its wrong? Who has that authority? If you wish to make a point, do it by your might.
Actions speak louder than words, friend.

So are you saying 'ability to do' is the same thing as 'right'?

At least iwithin this context.

9.5 times out of ten, so far, that's exactly what he means.

Yes.

We have laws to protect the rights of the few against the howling, shit-throwing "might" of the many. But I don't expect you to understand or acknowledge that, based on prior conversations.

Well, you mean that there is a third party, the state, that enacts these laws. The state has the right to do this via the might of punishment. And it reserves this right by its might. Ordinary citizens do not have the right to dispense justice even if they form armed militias, and the state will come down upon those with its might, whether those who break the law, or those who take the law in their own hands.

[eyemixer]

So are you saying 'ability to do' is the same thing as 'right'?

At least iwithin this context.

In what context does it not hold, and why not?

In addition, If I chose to spend the money the odds are I can find out who you are in the real world, track you down, and have a hit placed on you, resulting in your death. So that means killing you is the right thing to do by your definition. Do you agree with this?

P.S. I neither advocate nor engage in the assassination of fellow forum members (or anyone else for that matter)

[kılıç_mehmet]

At least iwithin this context.

In what context does it not hold, and why not?

In addition, If I chose to spend the money the odds are I can find out who you are in the real world, track you down, and have a hit placed on you, resulting in your death. So that means killing you is the right thing to do by your definition. Do you agree with this?

P.S. I neither advocate nor engage in the assassination of fellow forum members (or anyone else for that matter)

I think that you don't really understand the concept of might. In truth, the real might in your scenario lies with the man who performs the hit, as it is him who pulls the trigger, i.e. holds life and death in his hand.

But even his might is nothing.
I'd say that you're mighty, if you would have me arrested, brought before you, where you could kill me yourself without the fear of repercussion from anyone or anything else. That is might.
As for your scenario, what you're doing is illegal, meaning that you ultimately have to do have to bow to the might of someone else, as you do not wish to get your hands dirty, and you have to do it by shady means, as to avoid those with the real might, the might of the laws and their punishment, under which my life is being protected.

[eyemixer]

In what context does it not hold, and why not?

In addition, If I chose to spend the money the odds are I can find out who you are in the real world, track you down, and have a hit placed on you, resulting in your death. So that means killing you is the right thing to do by your definition. Do you agree with this?

P.S. I neither advocate nor engage in the assassination of fellow forum members (or anyone else for that matter)

I think that you don't really understand the concept of might. In truth, the real might in your scenario lies with the man who performs the hit, as it is him who pulls the trigger, i.e. holds life and death in his hand.

But even his might is nothing.
I'd say that you're mighty, if you would have me arrested, brought before you, where you could kill me yourself without the fear of repercussion from anyone or anything else. That is might.
As for your scenario, what you're doing is illegal, meaning that you ultimately have to do have to bow to the might of someone else, as you do not wish to get your hands dirty, and you have to do it by shady means, as to avoid those with the real might, the might of the laws and their punishment, under which my life is being protected.

To my first question which you did not answer, I ask again, In what context does it not hold, and why not?

And I would prefer if you can avoid directly contradicting yourself in your response.

Well, you mean that there is a third party, the state, that enacts these laws. The state has the right to do this via the might of punishment. And it reserves this right by its might

I think that you don't really understand the concept of might. In truth, the real might in your scenario lies with the man who performs the hit, as it is him who pulls the trigger, i.e. holds life and death in his hand.

Which is it?

And if I have 'the ability to' engage in actions that result directly in your death, as per your earlier claim :

So are you saying 'ability to do' is the same thing as 'right'?

At least iwithin this context.

How is it killing you NOT the right thing to do?

[kılıç_mehmet]

To my first question which you did not answer, I ask again, In what context does it not hold, and why not?

And I would prefer if you can avoid directly contradicting yourself in your response.

When there is not a third party involved.
If it was just me and you in a room, and a single loaf of bread, if I take it all for myself by beating you it'd make me right. If I had a change of heart, and chose to share it with yu, it'd still make me right.
But if there was another person in the room, stronger than both of us, and told us to share, then even if I beat you bloody, it would make no difference at all, I'd still have to bow to his demand to share the bread I fought you for.

Which is it?

And if I have 'the ability to' engage in actions that result directly in your death, as per your earlier claim :

The fact is, you don't engage in actions that directly result in my death, you merely pay the person that does.
But even if you did pull the trigger yourself, you'd not have much might in that case.
Besides, why are you so preoccupied with death?
Might does not need to be as such.
For example, a mother can show might over her child by sending her away to her room, that might is reserved to her, even if the child thinks otherwise, or even if another person, say, a family friend, thinks otherwise, the mother has the might to do this. Therefore, she is right, even if others think otherwise, they cannot tell the child to ignore or disobey the command of her mother.

How is it killing you NOT the right thing to do?

If you must, arrange your so called hit. I'll even give you my address, save you the trouble, if you think that ending my existence is the right thing to do. I cannot really say, though that ending my life is not the right thing to do. Everyone has their reasons. Though doing so will not really make you mighty by long shot.

[eyemixer]

Thanks for the answer to the first question, but you only partially quoted my second question and failed to answer it. I would appreciate an answer.

Well, you mean that there is a third party, the state, that enacts these laws. The state has the right to do this via the might of punishment. And it reserves this right by its might

I think that you don't really understand the concept of might. In truth, the real might in your scenario lies with the man who performs the hit, as it is him who pulls the trigger, i.e. holds life and death in his hand.

Which is it?

I use death as an example as it tends to be a non-reversible condition. I also could care less about how much 'might' I have by causing such an action, so arguing how that action does not grant me 'might' seems a bit pointless.

So what you seem to be saying is that stealing your food (or killing you, or any application of force against your will) is the 'right' thing to do if I can do it. So if I was the one to 'pull the trigger' then killing you would be the right thing to do?

It seems your ONLY definition of 'right' is what is compelled by the more powerful, and NO OTHER definition of 'right' is correct. Am I characterizing your position correctly?

[kılıç_mehmet]

Thanks for the answer to the first question, but you only partially quoted my second question and failed to answer it. I would appreciate an answer.

I answered that question. I said within this context, because there is no third party involved, it involves two parties that struggle for supremacy, where might makes right.
If there was a third party involved that would restrict the might of the two parties, I'd say that the right lays with the third party.
In your scenario, there is a third party, which is the hitman, and the fourth party, which is law enforcement.
Given the fact that the hit you have paid for is successful does not change this.

I use death as an example as it tends to be a non-reversible condition. I also could care less about how much 'might' I have by causing such an action, so arguing how that action does not grant me 'might' seems a bit pointless.

You cannot cause might, you either have it or not.
You might have personal reasons to wish death upon me, but law states that you do not reserve the right to cause death upon me, either directly. Who is more powerful, who is more mighty?
Who reserves to call what is right and what is not? Obviously, it is not you, but the law.

So what you seem to be saying is that stealing your food (or killing you, or any application of force against your will) is the 'right' thing to do if I can do it. So if I was the one to 'pull the trigger' then killing you would be the right thing to do?

It seems your ONLY definition of 'right' is what is compelled by the more powerful, and NO OTHER definition of 'right' is correct. Am I characterizing your position correctly?

Well, even if you think its not, who is going to tell me otherwise after I take your bread?
I think I am right, I eliminated you and have all the bread for myself.
Unless there is a third party involved, who might not even be another person, but say, for example, a mere concept of sharing, that we have been told that is right by those who have taught us, we have accepted the "right" of a third party.
Their might is not in the form of violence or threats of violence.

And yes, that is correct. However, that might may not always be related to violence. Its just that within the context of conquest it is done as such.

[eyemixer]

Thanks for the answer to the first question, but you only partially quoted my second question and failed to answer it. I would appreciate an answer.

I answered that question. I said within this context, because there is no third party involved, it involves two parties that struggle for supremacy, where might makes right.
If there was a third party involved that would restrict the might of the two parties, I'd say that the right lays with the third party.
In your scenario, there is a third party, which is the hitman, and the fourth party, which is law enforcement.
Given the fact that the hit you have paid for is successful does not change this.

I use death as an example as it tends to be a non-reversible condition. I also could care less about how much 'might' I have by causing such an action, so arguing how that action does not grant me 'might' seems a bit pointless.

You cannot cause might, you either have it or not.
You might have personal reasons to wish death upon me, but law states that you do not reserve the right to cause death upon me, either directly. Who is more powerful, who is more mighty?
Who reserves to call what is right and what is not? Obviously, it is not you, but the law.

So what you seem to be saying is that stealing your food (or killing you, or any application of force against your will) is the 'right' thing to do if I can do it. So if I was the one to 'pull the trigger' then killing you would be the right thing to do?

It seems your ONLY definition of 'right' is what is compelled by the more powerful, and NO OTHER definition of 'right' is correct. Am I characterizing your position correctly?

Well, even if you think its not, who is going to tell me otherwise after I take your bread?
I think I am right, I eliminated you and have all the bread for myself.
Unless there is a third party involved, who might not even be another person, but say, for example, a mere concept of sharing, that we have been told that is right by those who have taught us, we have accepted the "right" of a third party.
Their might is not in the form of violence or threats of violence.

And yes, that is correct. However, that might may not always be related to violence. Its just that within the context of conquest it is done as such.

You just answered my first question twice, not the second. You made two contradictory statements.

The first:

Well, you mean that there is a third party, the state, that enacts these laws. The state has the right to do this via the might of punishment. And it reserves this right by its might

The Second:

I think that you don't really understand the concept of might. In truth, the real might in your scenario lies with the man who performs the hit, as it is him who pulls the trigger, i.e. holds life and death in his hand.

Either the state does have power, or it does not. Your second statement invalidates the first, as it is NOT the state, but the single individual carrying out the act who has the 'might' as you describe it. My argument with ordering a hit matches with your first definition of might (the state taking action) but you dismiss it with your second (only the hand on the trigger has might). This is what I am asking you for an answer about. Which of these statements do you hold to be true as they are contradictory? If I sucessfully order a hit, then by definition no other party was able to withhold my 'might'

As to

You cannot cause might, you either have it or not.

that is patently false. Acquisition of a firearm gives me more 'might' and by your definition more 'right'. Studying the martial arts and sculpting a physique capable of applying those arts in a destructive manner is another acquisition of 'might' in terms of my ability to dominate the actions of another through force. And what has the law to do with it? If the law cannot prevent me from killing someone, the law has less 'might' than I do, but if I get caught and then executed, now the law has more 'might' than I do.

Do you disagree with the commonly accepted meaning of 'right' when used as an adjective as used in the English language?

1.
morally good, justified, or acceptable.
"I hope we're doing the right thing"
synonyms: just, fair, proper, good, upright, righteous, virtuous, moral, ethical, honorable, honest; More
lawful, legal
"it wouldn't be right to do that"
antonyms: wrong, unjust
2.
true or correct as a fact.
"I'm not sure I know the right answer"
synonyms: correct, accurate, exact, precise; More

And yes, I understand you can agree with this and still hold your position, I don't want to assume what's in your head

[kılıç_mehmet]

Either the state does have power, or it does not. Your second statement invalidates the first, as it is NOT the state, but the single individual carrying out the act who has the 'might' as you describe it. My argument with ordering a hit matches with your first definition of might (the state taking action) but you dismiss it with your second (only the hand on the trigger has might). This is what I am asking you for an answer about. Which of these statements do you hold to be true as they are contradictory? If I sucessfully order a hit, then by definition no other party was able to withhold my 'might'

Rather than a contradtion, I see a mistake on my behalf as I seem to have confused you.
I merely compared you to the gunman, not the gunman to and the state.
And obviously since both ordering a hit, and performing a hit are both illegal(for a reason), makes the law right by all definitions.

that is patently false. Acquisition of a firearm gives me more 'might' and by your definition more 'right'.

Acquisition of a firearm gives you nothing but a firearm. The legal use of that firearm is still for the law to decide, and the law reserves the right to deny or allow you access to it. If you acquire a firearm by means that are not within the limits of the law, then you break the law still, and subject yourself to the punishment of a higher position.

Studying the martial arts and sculpting a physique capable of applying those arts in a destructive manner is another acquisition of 'might' in terms of my ability to dominate the actions of another through force.

Yet again, each of your actions are still subject to the regulation of the law.
You only have as much might as the law allows you to have.

Do you disagree with the commonly accepted meaning of 'right' when used as an adjective as used in the English language?

No. As might still makes those defitinitions, meaning, "lawful", "moral" or "unjust".

As with the two men and bread example, where I'm speaking of a single control volume, there is nothing else to define these terms than might. There might be a third option of these two men "agreeing" on a common definition for these terms, but still, since there is no third party to enforce anything or judge based on these definitions, in the second one of them goes against the said definitions, the one who is mightier than the other will enforce "right" with "might".

[Autumnlicious]

In any case, if they're airborne, not eating people won't do much to stop it. If not for you, I would now be in the 'don't eat people, prions!' camp thanks to the point that Moros made.

Calm down.

Prions are merely Proteins.

To make such airborne, you'd need some mechanism to crystallize or hold them in suspension in a vapor.

After that, you'd need them in such a large quantity that UV breakdown is reduced and a way to ingest them.

One prion stands a fast chance of degrading even when inside the perfect environment (neural tissue).

Now imagine how hard it is to get an infectious quantity into a volatile, stable, pathogenic state, then to bypass your nose and lungs, then to somehow get into your blood stream DESPITE it being a giant honking protein that normally is rejected from a lipid bilayer membrane, and finally end up inside the appropriate environment.

Can you even think of a creature that uses an airborne proteinaceous venom?

Every single creature that uses the proteinaceous venom ends up finding someway to inject it directly into the hosts tissues, like snakes, cone snails or Tarsiers.

Viral pathogens stand a much greater chance due to the multiple coats and structures that make them resilient to environments outside their normal host. Many possess specific receptors that allow them to be pulled into their cellular victims.

That is no way comparable to a naked protein.

Don't lick the crystallized prions if you can help it.