Comment: NAP is personal, not some grandly binding collective ethic.

(See in situ)


NAP is personal, not some grandly binding collective ethic.

The first part of your comment is concerned with what I failed to directly reply to in your previous comment.

But according to NAP, he hasn't committed aggression

The NAP is about my aggression. [We're back to russellmeansfan's post now]. The NAP is a personal moral principle. It's not party to a body of law used to judge others. This is why, from my perspective, I remain unconcerned with distinguishing threats in categories of tree, dog, or human. When someone points a gun at me I am not concerned with whether or not he adheres to or is violating NAP. What's more, is that I have never personally run across any advocate of NAP who has tried to promote it as some sort of thing that should become specifically legal, like one could or should be fined or thrown in jail for the pretentiously specific violation of NAP. In fact, it's tends to be the opposite. "Hate crimes" is a good analogy if not an exact example.

While NAP is impotent to handle this fact...

Yes, I agree. NAP is not meant for handling those facts.

NAP has nothing to do with my preventing you or anyone else but me from engaging aggression.

I see threats merely as threats. I don't waste my time breaking down , categorizing, or measuring levels of aggression when threatened. I certainly measure levels of threat. Should I mention to someone, "Hey, I think you were being quite aggressive there." It is the same kind of feedback as, "Hey, I think you were really funny there."

"Aggressive" is like "insipid". I also care to not be insipid. As far as others go, I've learned to avoid insipid people as well as aggressive people.

Hey, how about the NIP?

...but who would care? :D