What you consider "snark" is really your failure to see that we are indeed still debating. The issue I brought to your attention was that to simply state "do no harm" as an inherent law does not make any absolute article out of harm itself. And what was your new answer? Don't "initiate direct, proximate, and non-consensual harm". That is like defining the word "difficult" by stating something that is difficult. Instead of attempting to look for further truth in social structure, you are attempting to re-validate your original argument. That is what I would call debate.
If you do not like the tone of my posts, get rid of your circular logic and address my question. There is no need to patronize. Without having to fall back on legal rhetoric or tautology, is there a way to define an inherent law that appears in Nature concerning society?
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: