Aidan

So you have been contradicting yourself on this point since day one, and in all the numerous lengthy discussions we have had. You have repeatedly both admitted and denied the same proposition, then when I have said you're contradicting yourself, you have denied it, and then repeated the same contradiction - over and over and over again. And you're still doing it!

Even with the spotlight glaring on your intellectual dishonesty, you can't bring yourself to come clean, and admit that you're wrong.

You're wrong, okay? You are talking bullsh!t.

The government in enforcing law and policy does NOT act in "self-defence", you fool. What a load of complete nonsense.

Even when you are stripped of all your evasive gabble-yarp, and forced into a corner, and forced to confront your own double-talk, you still won't have the decency to admit the glaringly obvious.

And my same demolition of your blatantly false claim that the enforcement of your economic policies does not rest on violence, awaits your double-talk and circularity about the economics. You enter the discussion having assume without explanation that government creates such and such a net benefit. When challenged, you deny that you're begging the question. And then you do it again, and again, and again! And you tell me the problem is my lack of understanding and my intellectual dishonesty!

You have not established that the government is capable of ANY economic intervention that confers a net economic benefit to society, either by way of retirement affordability, or anything else.

And if you dare to answer, I'll prove it.

Now is assault violence, or not?

All I know for the third year running pension increases have not met private health costs.

Jardine,

AIUI the crime (and tort) of assault does not necessarily involve actual violence, though in the cases that go to court it usually does. And in Australia it is classified as a violent crime whether or not any actual violence occurs.

Nothing I have said contradicts that; you are perceiving a contradiction where none exists.

"The government in enforcing law and policy does NOT act in "self-defence", you fool. What a load of complete nonsense."
ITYF most instances of actual violence by those enforcing the law are in self defence or the defence of others. In other situations the cops don't usually have a reason to resort to violence.

Why is it you have so much trouble comprehending that the government prevents far more violence than it commits?

You've frequently falsely accused me of intellectual dishonesty, so now I refuse to tolerate the intellectual dishonesty that you frequently resort to.

Regarding my position on economics, I'm happy to discuss it if you like. But you seemed to regard that irrelevant ECP argument as a prerequisite, and then you preferred to concentrate on the semantics of whether assault is violence.

Do you think your equivocation and slimy evasiveness isn't obvious?

You say that the government, and you, classify assault as violence.

But then you say that assault is not "actual violence".

When I asked you specifically to say whether assault is or is not violence, you evade answering on point, and only divert to *repeating your equivocation* that occasioned by question. Talk about slimy.

Of course your equivocation leaves you the wriggle room, when caught advocating violence, to deny that it's "actual violence", even where you yourself have previously admitted that it is violence. And that's exactly the squirming tactic you have used in previous threads, isn't it?

So will you let us know, whether you consider your category of "violence that is not actual violence" to be a subset of the general category of
a) "violence" or of the general category of
b) "not-violence"?

Also, if A corners and threatens to stab B with a knife, but without A or the knife ever touching B, do you consider that to be violence, or not? I'm not asking whether you think it's "actual" versus "violence but not actual violence". I'm asking whether you consider it to be violence, or not-violence? Okay? Got that? Understand now?

[Readers: stand by on slime alert.]

Well that's just typical of you, Jardine: I tell you what I understand the truth to be, and you don't provide any evidence to the contrary or even properly dispute my claim, but instead you criticise me for "equivocation and slimy evasiveness"! Your own pathetic inability to deal with complex situations means you keep asking me questions that I've already answered, and get mad at me when I stick to the answer that I believe to be correct!

Assault in general certainly can't be classified as not violence, as it usually does involve violence.

But, to the best of my legal understanding (and I'm not a lawyer) assault is the threat of violence; the actual violence is battery. Which would mean it's technically possible for an individual instance of assault to be classified as not violence (if not involving actual violence is the standard for classifying something as not violence).

"Also, if A corners and threatens to stab B with a knife, but without A or the knife ever touching B, do you consider that to be violence, or not?"
I consider it to be violence if A attempts or intends to carry out the threat.
If A does not attempt or intend to carry out the threat, I do not consider it to be violence... but I hasten to add that it's still a crime, and indeed I'd expect it to be officially classified as a violent crime for crime statistics purposes.

Honestly, Aidan, it's like drawing teeth.

I asked whether *you consider* assault to be violence, or not, and you answer "it's technically possible for an individual instance of assault to be classified as not violence", i.e. trying to slime out of ownership of the proposition, and slime it onto some unspecified,unnamed, absent, hypothetical other.

I know it must be hard to for you to say something without being slimy and evasive, but just try.

Do *YOU* consider assault to be a sub-set of the general category of violence, or a sub-set of the general category of non-violence?

Not somebody else. *YOU*?

BTW thank you for your admission that you are equivocating, and have been equivocating the whole time.

I claimed that you are contradicting yourself, and now you admit that you have been, the whole time, simultaneously running contradictory propositions, namely, that assault is, and is not violence. When I say government interventions are based on violence, you say they're not not. But then you admit that governments initiate threats to enforce policy; and by their own definition, assault is a crime and act of violence.

Then when I want to rely on that conclusion, you try to slime out of it by saying that assault is not "actual violence". Then when I ask whether assault is a sub-set of violence or not, you're back to you're slimy double-talk, trying to shuck responsibility off onto someone else, and contradicting yourself by saying it's not.

And then you have the gall to personally attack me for "not providing evidence" when I have correctly evidenced from the very beginning, by your own words, that you are contradicting yourself. You blame me for asking you questions "that I have already answered" when YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED, AND ARE STILL TRYING TO SLIME YOUR WAY OUT OF IT.

Now what's the answer to the question, pray? Do *YOU* consider assault to be a sub-set of the general category of violence, or a sub-set of the general category of non-violence?