Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieBird
Words matter. Semantics matter. If we are not precise in our definitions, or usage of words, then misunderstandings occur. You cannot say "YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN AND YOU'RE A DIRTY SOB FOR NOT AGREEING WITH ME" without being exact in your verbiage.
You are correct in the lower case 'L'. However, you really need some reading comprehension for the rest of my post. I did not claim to be a libertarian, or be a part of the Libertarian party. I said my beliefs tend to lean libertarian.
Secondly, I did not restrict myself to physical harm. I stated harm. The rest of your emotionally driven post is a mere strawman, not at all rooted in what I actually said. Please try to be logical, and not emotional in these exchanges.
|
I agree with you that semantics are very important, and that people throw up "you're just arguing semantics" wrongly when in fact the semantic distinction is the relevant matter. However, in this case, your semantic argument is the straw man, trying to argue correct and understood terms to deflect and distract from the issue.
The straw man here is that the term "Steal" is wrong or that it would matter to anyone but those trying to rationalize illegal acts. Not only is 'steal' appropriate and correct in common usage, but some of the lawyers among us have pointed out that is is also legally correct and used statutorily for IP violations is some places.
The other straw man is the implication that merely mentioning a violent crime in a post about a civil offense is intended to equate the harm of the two. Most others clearly see that the analogy was to show that the idea of stopping an action before due process is not inherently wrong, and the issue is really to determine more thoughtfully when it's proper and when it's not.