Global Capitalism

[phyllo]

But of course, they are always free to refuse to accept your paraphrases...even in their entirety, because they don't necessarily even represent a partial implication of what they actually said.

That's the point Chuckles.

If the original speaker does not agree with the paraphrase, then he/she states in what ways it is not a correct representation of the original statement.

The paraphraser then tries another paraphrase based on that information.

After some rounds of this, they come to an agreement on what the original speaker meant by the original statement. Or the original statement gets modified in the process and they have an agreement on the modification.

The result is that both parties understand what they are talking about.

[Immanuel Can]

But of course, they are always free to refuse to accept your paraphrases...even in their entirety, because they don't necessarily even represent a partial implication of what they actually said.

That's the point Chuckles.

Great. Then I reject your earlier paraphrases. Quote me, if you want to ask me what I meant by something, and I'll do the paraphrasing myself. Then you'll know it's accurate.

[phyllo]

But of course, they are always free to refuse to accept your paraphrases...even in their entirety, because they don't necessarily even represent a partial implication of what they actually said.

That's the point Chuckles.

Great. Then I reject your earlier paraphrases. Quote me, if you want to ask me what I meant by something, and I'll do the paraphrasing myself. Then you'll know it's accurate.

I think that I will keep using a proven technique rather than your alternative suggestion.

If you decline to participate, I understand entirely and I won't use it with you.

[Immanuel Can]

That's the point Chuckles.

Great. Then I reject your earlier paraphrases. Quote me, if you want to ask me what I meant by something, and I'll do the paraphrasing myself. Then you'll know it's accurate.

I think that I will keep using a proven technique rather than your alternative suggestion.

It's not exactly a "suggestion." It's my terms. And unfortunately for you, I have the choice of what I accept as a reasonable representation of my view, and what I find spurious. And I choose how I respond, whether to affirm or reject. So it seems you're just going to have to live with it.

Tragic, I suppose: but there it is.

[phyllo]

I have understood since the beginning that I don't have control over how you respond.

There is, however, a more productive way to respond.

Which I have presented to you.

[Immanuel Can]

I have understood since the beginning that I don't have control over how you respond.

There is, however, a more productive way to respond.

Which I have presented to you.

Well, let's see.

So far, it's not working well. Both you and Gary have incorrectly paraphrased, yet again.

It seems it's not turning out to be as "productive" as you would have us suppose. It looks more like a case of "straw-man" building.

[Gary Childress]

First, such sharing of resources as the early disciples opted to practice was entirely voluntary and personal, and had no political coercion involved.

So you're saying that the sharing of resources is not the will of God.

It's just something that the disciples and the early followers did.

It's probably against the will of God? Perhaps it's an evil that God permits to exist?

@

First, such sharing of resources as the early disciples opted to practice was entirely voluntary and personal, and had no political coercion involved. There wasn't even a commandment to the effect they should do it. Secondly, everything that a disciple didn't want to share remained fully his, and he wasn't obliged to share it (Acts 5:4). Thirdly, Jesus Christ left no commandments, no procedures, no structures or authorization for a political arrangment of compelled sharing. And forthly, it was strictly for the disciples, apparently temporary, and was never extended to a political arrangment for unbelievers, far less a utopian political plan for everybody.

: So are you saying that there was no "political" coercion on the part of Jesus or God for the disciples to share their resources? Or why are the disciples sharing resources unless it's the will of God that they share. So are you saying that Phyllo is incorrect and it is not the case that it is not the will of God for the disciples to share (meaning it IS the will of God for the disciples to share)? Is that correct? Or how did Phyllo misconstrue what you were saying?

[Immanuel Can]

So are you saying that there was no "political" coercion on the part of Jesus or God for the disciples to share their resources?

I don't "think" it. I know it. Look at the Biblical text, if you want to confirm that.

[Gary Childress]

So are you saying that there was no "political" coercion on the part of Jesus or God for the disciples to share their resources?

I don't "think" it. I know it. Look at the Biblical text, if you want to confirm that.

Can you define what "political coercion" is? Does it significantly differ from other forms of coercion? Or are you saying that God doesn't use coercion at all?

[Immanuel Can]

So are you saying that there was no "political" coercion on the part of Jesus or God for the disciples to share their resources?

I don't "think" it. I know it. Look at the Biblical text, if you want to confirm that.

Can you define what "political coercion" is?

The use of force, essentially.

[Gary Childress]

I don't "think" it. I know it. Look at the Biblical text, if you want to confirm that.

Can you define what "political coercion" is?

The use of force, essentially.

Is a fine for not complying with a law a form of "political coercion" or use of "force"? Or are all means of intimidation "coercion"?

[Immanuel Can]

Can you define what "political coercion" is?

The use of force, essentially.

Is a fine for not complying with a law a form of "political coercion" or use of "force"? Or are all means of intimidation "coercion"?

? I have no idea what the point of the question is. Can you explain?

[Gary Childress]

The use of force, essentially.

Is a fine for not complying with a law a form of "political coercion" or use of "force"? Or are all means of intimidation "coercion"?

? I have no idea what the point of the question is. Can you explain?

That's fine that you don't know the "point" of my question. What I'm interested in is your answer before you know find out where I'm going with it. But you should be able to guess, I would think, so in that case you would have an idea what the point of the question is.

[Immanuel Can]

Is a fine for not complying with a law a form of "political coercion" or use of "force"? Or are all means of intimidation "coercion"?

? I have no idea what the point of the question is. Can you explain?

That's fine that you don't know the "point" of my question. What I'm interested in is your answer before you know find out where I'm going with it. But you should be able to guess, I would think, so in that case you would have an idea what the point of the question is.

Well, if I had to guess, I think you'll probably broaden your definition of "force" to include all sorts of things...such as speaking any contrary truth. And then you'll try to tell me that if Jesus Christ spoke of things like a "road to destruction," then he was, at least, threatening force, if not actually using any. And you'll try to convince me it's all the same ball of wax.

Of course, that would mean that anybody who, say, contradicted somebody else's prejudices or received beliefs, and told them there would be unfortunate consequences, was "using force." And it would fail to recognize the very crucial distinction between merely persuading the mind and actually employing force. It would reduce to the silly utterance, "Don't force me to accept your beliefs," which occasionally appears whenever some relativist finds you don't agree with him. At which point one always has to point out to the utterer that free speech is not abuse or "force." It's just dialogue. And that no choice we ever make in life is consequence-free, so he should probably grow up and settle down.

But for me to imagine this was your intended road would surely be uncharitable, and would attribute to you a kind of mendacity you'd find insulting. So it's hard for me to answer your query directly without also implying something dishonourable about your character.

Or maybe there's another explanation, and you're a better man than I'm imagining. And in hope of that, I'm open to a better supposition, if you can tell me where you were going with that.

[Gary Childress]

? I have no idea what the point of the question is. Can you explain?

That's fine that you don't know the "point" of my question. What I'm interested in is your answer before you know find out where I'm going with it. But you should be able to guess, I would think, so in that case you would have an idea what the point of the question is.

Well, if I had to guess, I think you'll probably broaden your definition of "force" to include all sorts of things...such as speaking any contrary truth. And then you'll try to tell me that if Jesus Christ spoke of things like a "road to destruction," then he was, at least, threatening force, if not actually using any. And you'll try to convince me it's all the same ball of wax.

Of course, that would mean that anybody who, say, contradicted somebody else's prejudices or received beliefs, and told them there would be unfortunate consequences, was "using force." And it would fail to recognize the very crucial distinction between merely persuading the mind and actually employing force. It would reduce to the silly utterance, "Don't force me to accept your beliefs," which occasionally appears whenever some relativist finds you don't agree with him. At which point one always has to point out to the utterer that free speech is not abuse or "force." It's just dialogue. And that no choice we ever make in life is consequence-free, so he should probably grow up and settle down.

But for me to imagine this was your intended road would surely be uncharitable, and would attribute to you a kind of mendacity you'd find insulting. So it's hard for me to answer your query directly without also implying something dishonourable about your character.

Or maybe there's another explanation, and you're a better man than I'm imagining. And in hope of that, I'm open to a better supposition, if you can tell me where you were going with that.

So is a fine for not complying with a law a form of "political coercion" or use of "force"? Or are all means of intimidation "coercion"?