From: b.scott@csuohio.edu   
      
   On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 08:24:14 +1200, Zeborah   
    wrote in   
    in   
   rec.arts.sf.misc:   
      
   > David Friedman  wrote:   
      
   [...]   
      
   >> Is it your view that the only threat against which the   
   >> threat of lethal force is justified is to your life? A   
   >> woman who pulls a gun on a  would-be rapist is acting   
   >> wrongly, and if he manages to shoot her first he was   
   >> acting in self-defense? Does your answer depend on   
   >> whether she believes he will follow rape with murder?   
      
   > You know, you're incredibly obnoxious.  Either you   
   > honestly don't see how imprisonment is not the same as   
   > rape, which is obnoxious; or you think I won't be able to   
   > verbalise how they're not the same, which is obnoxious.   
      
   It seems to me that David is using one of his favorite   
   techniques here: treating fuzzy categories as if they had   
   sharp boundaries and then arguing that responses that take   
   into account the fuzziness of the boundary are inconsistent.   
   (Sadly, I suspect that there's at least as much sincerity in   
   it as there is rhetorical artifice.)   
      
   And I predict that your response won't faze someone who can   
   write this:   
      
      This argument requires that, on net, I get larger   
      benefits from other people than all of them put   
      together get from me--there's no particular reason   
      why that should be the case.   
      
   [...]   
      
   Brian   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)