I don't know /liberty/, I have a complaint about the NAP not covering words.Don't you realize that groups already exist that take advantage of laws(or lack thereof) regarding physical injury but not emotional injury, like the Westboro Baptist Crunch? The

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

File: bd38d35885b4b65⋯.png (127.96 KB, 581x443, 581:443, 1419499036861.png)

Anonymous 07/27/17 (Thu) 21:24:19 No.61405

I don't know /liberty/, I have a complaint about the NAP not covering words.

Don't you realize that groups already exist that take advantage of laws(or lack thereof) regarding physical injury but not emotional injury, like the Westboro Baptist Crunch? They make money of lawsuits(And people viewing ads in their website, but that's not the point). I don't care about the whole "But if you were a real man you wouldn't care" stuff, yeah I know you don't care about dumb people or whatever but they're part of the work force, unlike people exploiting oversights in the NAP.

Anonymous 07/27/17 (Thu) 21:35:50 No.61407

>>61405

We've gone over this. You end up with contradictions if you include "verbal abuse" as legitimate coercion. It's not about feelings, it's about applicable consistency.

Anonymous 07/27/17 (Thu) 21:42:19 No.61409

Hurt feelings are not violence.

Anonymous 07/27/17 (Thu) 21:53:03 No.61412

Communication is a two way street. Theres the speaker and there's the interpreter. Feelings are nothing but the result of people's perspective. Self inflicted pain does not violate the NAP.

Anonymous 07/27/17 (Thu) 22:15:41 No.61415

Wait is nobody going to explain how insulting people until one of them punches you and then filling lawsuits is not a thing that will happen in Liberty Land?

Anonymous 08/03/17 (Thu) 02:25:19 No.62423

>>61407

>>61412

So did any of you two realize that you managed to explain not only why "hurting someone's feelings" is a bad thing to make illegal, but offhandedly explain "deliberately trying to hurt someone's feelings" isn't?

>Communication is a two way street. There's the speaker and there's the interpreter

>It's about applicable consistency.

Anonymous 08/03/17 (Thu) 03:15:48 No.62425

File: ea890923400053f⋯.png (95.35 KB, 338x328, 169:164, Skepticism.png)

>>62423

>interpretations are by definition inconsistent due to personal nuances

>violence is in part about applicable consistency, what is to be considered violence must be almost universally accepted and unmistakable in its attempt. everybody knows what a mugging is, whereas a light punch to the shoulder could mean may things depending on the circumstances

>verbal abuse is an cant be considered as violent because what is being said could be interpreted and handled in many different ways, if it is interpreted at all if the interpreter doesnt understand the language.

Seems like pretty straightforward reasoning to me.

Anonymous 08/03/17 (Thu) 05:40:37 No.62436

>>62425

Are you ignoring the speaker exists here?

>The speaker can't threaten someone because its up to the interpreter to interpret it!

What If the speaker deliberately tries to threaten someone and the interpreter misses his threat? Its the opposite of what you're discussing yet would cover similar cases.

Anonymous 08/03/17 (Thu) 07:48:51 No.62440

>>62423

Threats are not "hurtful words", they're warnings of aggression, and should be taken into percussion. "I'm going to kill you" is not the same as "I hope you die". Words can't threaten. Like, when a dog barks at you, you're not scared of the bark, you're scared of the dog.

Anonymous 08/03/17 (Thu) 14:23:34 No.62500

>>62436

Until the speaker follows up on a threat, it might as well be inarticulate autistic screeching for all the harm it does somebody. You can't "preemptively" defend yourself against somebody because they might be a threat to you in the future, unless they where literally drawing a gun as they where talking. Also, this thread is about the concept of vebal abuse not threats of physical violence. Try to stay consistent.

Anonymous 08/03/17 (Thu) 16:57:21 No.62559

>>62440

>>62500

>Brings up new topic(Threats of violence)

>Reply to topic

>Person who probably brought the new topic up in first place is mad at me because I'm not using the topic I started the thread with

Press Enter to confirm.

Anonymous 08/05/17 (Sat) 07:13:37 No.62822

Provocation is used to justify the attacker in many fights. In most jurisdictions, if somebody is talking shit and you hit them, and the fight is reasonably balanced and without weapons, then the shit-talker cannot sue you.

I think that this perspective is justified, at least to an extent.

Anonymous 08/05/17 (Sat) 07:22:13 No.62824

>>62822

For the record, talking shit does not count as aggression, but more I'm saying serious, directly personal shit-talking justifies some aggression but typically only in the form of a minor punch-up or a challenge to something more severe.

Anonymous 08/05/17 (Sat) 08:09:43 No.62826

File: 0f182650f520611⋯.jpeg (106.93 KB, 510x680, 3:4, the moon is a harsh mistr….jpeg)

>>62822

>>62824

Anonymous 08/06/17 (Sun) 16:53:42 No.63052

>>61405

NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER

Anonymous 08/07/17 (Mon) 15:39:22 No.63171

>>61405

Freedom of speech is a negative right that doesn't impose on anyone, hate speech laws are positive rights that impose on everyone. Don't impose your shit on people and they won't be as likely to say mean shit to you, pretty simple.

Anonymous 08/07/17 (Mon) 15:41:48 No.63173

>>63171

Sometimes I'm sad that /liberty/ is such a slow board even though we understand reality, economics and politics better than the edgy /pol/ neo-nazi LARPers or /leftypol/ clueless commies.

We're a light drowned out by cancerous shitholes.

Anonymous 08/07/17 (Mon) 15:43:55 No.63174

>>63173

i got banned from /v/ for posting the horseshoe theory image.

yes, it's that bad. the alt-right is just as easily triggered as the regressive left

Anonymous 08/07/17 (Mon) 15:53:28 No.63175

>>63173

Let's not suck our own dicks too hard, but yea, people here aren't as pathetic.

Anonymous 08/07/17 (Mon) 16:02:23 No.63176

>>63174

Why would you post politics on a video game board?

Anonymous 08/07/17 (Mon) 16:22:25 No.63178