No one can ever be 100% proved by anything. There can be pretty much no reasonable doubt, but there is always that very small chance. It is possible for there to be cases where more than one person were prime suspects in a single-person committed crime.
There are but two situations in coercion: either you coerced on purpose or accidentally. If I rob a man at gunpoint it is not hard to prove that I knew what I was doing. Likewise, it would be hard to argue that the robbery was an accident. However, just like with equally suspicious suspects, there can be equally possible intents. If it made a big deal in getting retribution in addition to restitution, then detectives and courts could be hired.
I’m not interested in your attempts to claim that it is impossible to observe action. You’re attempting a dodge because the question is about intent, not action.
Again, you have not answered the question. Can you read minds? How can you prove intent without the ability to read minds? How can you know what is in a man’s heart when he hits you with his car?
You cannot read minds. You cannot prove intent 100%. However, you can get pretty close to beyond a reasonable doubt in whether it was purposeful or unintentional. It would be up to the victim if they wanted retribution or not.
It is most certainly objective. Whether other people know what you think, and even if you forget yourself, coercion is always either intentional or unintentional.
But if you can’t prove it, then how do you expect to be able to determine aggresion based on it? That’s utterly nonsensical.
If you mean objectively wrong, or an objective failure, I agree. Any system based on something which cannot be proven, by definition, is irrational and incoherent.
“You cannot read minds. You cannot prove intent 100%. However, you can get pretty close to beyond a reasonable doubt in whether it was purposeful or unintentional. It would be up to the victim if they wanted retribution or not.”
Again, you admit there is no way to objectively determine intent. Which means your system based on determining intent can never return a conclusive answer. Thus, it fails.
Yes, I do admit there is no way to objectively determine intent. Now tell me how to objectively determine aggression, which is what the NAP relies upon.
I cannot? I can’t produce video evidence? I can’t offer witness testimony? DNA evidence?
You’ve made dozens of posts, come up with a completely nonsensical moral system, and now are grasping at straws to defend it.
The bar here is much higher. Please, don’t waste our time.
If you really think the sum of your posts have proven anything in this thread, you are sadly mistaken. It’s your inability to grasp basic concepts like property ownership, self ownership, ownership control, homesteading that have prevented you from making a rational conclusion. You have not debunked the NAP in this thread, only demonstrated your unwillingness and incapacity to understand it.
And that cannot be faked? I can do the same thing:
Someone stands by a crowd of people and yells, “I am going to kill everyone here!” He pulls out a gun and opens fire on the crowd. His intention is clear-murder.
Can coercion be determined without relying on the intention of the victim? If so, how? If not, then why can the intention of the coercer not be objective?
