I already answered the question. I see no need for you to answer it for me.
That is to say, groups of people agree to impute certain meanings to certain words. There’s nothing necessary about the particular agreements made, the particular meanings imputed, or the particular words to which those meanings are imputed.
- There is conventions on how words arose. There is also rules on how words are to be interpreted.
- Despite the conventions meanings can still vary. Sophistry would be to interpret meaning into words, which isn’t actually there.
- Some words have more fixed meanings then others. There are concise and very broad words.
If the meaning of words can vary that much and is too relative, then we are going to have a problem with interpreting contracts and the like. Won’t we?
I don’t understand what you’ve just said as all the words you’re using have a different meaning from the way I’m using them. Your problem. Remember?
Those rules are also conventions. I take “convention” here to mean “widespread mutual agreement”. That in no way erases the subjectivity of it all.
Where does a meaning ever inhere in a word?
Again, that doesn’t erase the subjectivity of it all.
I’m sorry but I think you’re missing the point. The inherent subjectivity of meaning in no way means (no pun intended) that everyone will interpret a given word completely differently from everyone else.
I originally said that it’s your problem if you dislike the way someone is using certain words.
“First off, I’ll note that you seem to have a problem addressing me by name. I’m puzzled as to why. Maybe I struck a nerve with you and this is your way of trying to “get back at me”. If so, well, good luck with that.”
@Autolykos, I have no problem addressing you by name at all. And, no, you haven’t struck a nerve with me, and there’s nothing to get back at you for, nor is it my style to play such games. Though had I wanted to you can rest assured that there would be no luck involved. Relax.
“Anyways, when you use the phrase “words mean nothing” above, do you mean “meanings don’t inhere in words”? Or do you mean it’s impossible to impute any meaning to any word”? The former is true but the latter isn’t."
First, there is simply sound. When the sound is attached to some ‘thing’, ‘concept’, i.e.the ‘object’ of the sound, then it becomes a ‘word’. This word is then simply the sound we make when referring to a given object, and should bring to mind that object. After having given the object this sound, we can then use it for communication. ‘Words’ i.e.the sound attached to the objects referred to then have a meaning, assuming that others plan to share the same sounds for the same objects. If not, then communication is simply not possible. If X is calling that object over there a tree, and Y is calling the same object a cup, and this is generalized to all other words, then there is simply no such thing as communication, assuming we understand what communication is, which is I’m assuming to be obvious by the fact that you are probably capable of reading and understanding the words I write now. Again, if not, then please tell me what is taking place. I’m quite interested. We decide that this thing is called a ‘cat’ and we call it ‘cat’. If it has a trunk and wheels, it’s simply not a cat. Similarly, a group of folks decided to call their theories ‘libertarian’ or ‘anarchist’, and which have specific criteria for being either of these, oneof the main ones being that one is anti-hierarchical relations and is anti-capitalist. Therefore, if someone believes that capitalism is compatible with it, then they’re simply not a ‘libertarian’ or ‘anarchist’. It’s quite simple.
“Also, I’ll note that you’ve strawmanned my position.”
It’s possible, but highly doubtful.
“If I refer to a married person with the word “bachelor” without explaining my different definition for it, then those who expect “bachelor” to mean “an unmarried man” will understandably be confused.”
Yes, I agree. You’re using the term incorrectly and should fix it. It’s your problem of having the term wrong, not their’s for having it correct.
“However, I’ve always talked about specifying non-standard definitions as clearly as possible in the interests of mitigating confusion. You’ve ignored that part - perhaps deliberately.”
Not at all. In fact, I agreed with you. I said that if someone is using a non-standard definition that they should explain it clearly as possible so that those whom understand it in its standard form can1)know what this person is talking about 2)wonder why they’ve decided to change the definition. Of course that’s assuming that they are even aware that they’re using is unconventionally, which, in the case with “anarcho”-capitalists, I don’t think they do. If they do I’ve yet to meet a single one who has claimed that they were using the term in an unconventional way. This would mean either that 1)they actually didn’t know they were using it unconventionally or 2)they knew that they were and were simply hiding the fact for some odd reason. Again, I’m interested in precisely one might do this. Perhaps it’s another ruse as is the NAP, as if “non-aggression” were really the issue, which it’s not. But that’s a different difficulty.
“Finally, I’ll note that you use the phrase “the folks who think he’s using the term ‘bachelor’ incorrectly” rather than something like “the folks who use the term ‘bachelor’ correctly” - which implies that you do understand that correct/incorrect usage of a word is a matter of opinion/convention, rather than some inherent truth.”
“Inherent truth”? I’m afraid I don’t know what you’re talking about. We haven’t even started discussing ‘truth’ yet. We can though if you wish. We could start with why one would consciously not wish to use a term correctly, and what role “truth” plays in their deceit, again, assuing that they’re aware that they’re even doing it, which, as I said, I don’t believe they are. And words are absolutely nothing BUT for convention, which is different than opinion. My entire argument has been that language is for nothing but communication. This is why we decide for words to mean certain things. This is why you can read and understand what I’m writing right now. Has nothing to do with the little squiggles typed onto the page. It has to do with your understanding what I’m trying to get you to understand via use of those squiggles called words, which also have sounds, which are equally as arbitrary. So, it’s quite important that we agree upon what the squiggles and sounds refer to. If not, again, you could understand nothing of what I’ve just written. It’s therefore a good idea that when I say I want to drink a ‘beer’, a term agreed upon by most people, that you don’t hand me a ‘hammer’ a sound which is not used for that thing with Bass Ale written in the side of the bottle. Similarly, when I use the term ‘libertarian’ or ‘anarchist’ it’s a good idea that you understand that this means a person who is anti-capitalist, as has always been the case. Or, as you say, you can teach all of those folks who are still using the conventional/traditional meaning, as created by the folks who used it that way, that you’ve using it unconventionally. However, I don’t really believe this to be the problem. I believe the problem lies in the fact that those using it unconventionally are clueless that this is what they are doing. It is therefore for this reason that I feel compelled to help straighten out their misunderstanding. And for free!
“I originally said that it’s your problem if you dislike the way someone is using certain words.” Autolykos
Why would it be “my problem” simply because I don’t like hearing someone using a word incorrectly? Has nothing to do with my having a “problem”. It has to do with their having a problem, and in the case with the non-existent category of “anarcho”-capitalst, not being aware of it. Sort of like how a person with an ear for music, upon hearing a voilinist hit a screechingly horrible wrong note, might wince and feel sorry for the violinist, especially if he kept doing it over and over again not believing himself to have hit the wrong note.
Then the person with an “ear for music” would have the problem of being a masochist for continuing to listen to the horrible note “over and over again”. No one would have a problem if he simply left the room (unless he owned it, in which case he would kindly ask the violinist to leave). Property rights evolved as means toward peaceful conflict resolution (minimizing problems) – the ultimate incarnation of “live and let live”.
I think I’ll jump in here. I hope no one minds.
Torsten:
There is conventions on how words arose. There is also rules on how words are to be interpreted.
Autolykos
“Those rules are also conventions. I take “convention” here to mean “widespread mutual agreement”. That in no way erases the subjectivity of it all.”
Subjectivity is a given and not really of much interest. Yes, we all have different heads, brains, etc…So what? If your “subjectivity” and my “subjectivity” don’t agree upon what a word means, then there are problems. But, for the most part, we do agree upon the vast majority of words and meanings.
Despite the conventions meanings can still vary. Sophistry would be to interpret meaning into words, which isn’t actually there.
Autolykos
“Where does a meaning ever inhere in a word?”
I agree with Torsten on this one (and others). Sophistry would be to interpret meaning into words, AND sentences, which isn’t/aren’t there, such as attempting to argue that libertarians are pro-capitalist. But again I think one must be careful as sophistry, at least to me, sort of implies that the person doing it is doing it consciously. This would of course be different than were a person just using the term incorrectly.
Regarding your question, meaning inheres in the fact that when I say “cat” and the idea of a little furry four-legged thing pops into your head, presumably, the words has a meaning i.e.something which you can understand. If it didn’t, and perhaps basketball popped into your head upon hearing cat, well, then we have a breakdown of language.
Some words have more fixed meanings then others. There are concise and very broad words.
Autolykos
“Again, that doesn’t erase the subjectivity of it all.”
Where have you gotten that Torsten would believe that subjectivity was erased? Did I miss something?
If the meaning of words can vary that much and is too relative, then we are going to have a problem with interpreting contracts and the like. Won’t we?
autolykos
“I’m sorry but I think you’re missing the point. The inherent subjectivity of meaning in no way means (no pun intended) that everyone will interpret a given word completely differently from everyone else.”
Again, what does subjectivity have to do with this at all then? Secondly, what do you mean when you say “inherent subjectivity”? Thirdly, it sounds like what you’ve just explained is objectivity, regardless of the sound which is applied to the object. Or are you simply trying to argue that “2+2 = 4” is objective, and must be for everyone, whereas the term “cat” is only subjective because there’s nothing inherent in the notion of cat which is on par with necessary truth of 2+2=4?
Doesn`t it make any difference if the hierarchical relationship is voluntary or not, i.e. one can choose to be employed by a company, or choose not to be employed by a company in a society without government intervention in regards to production/trade etc(not authoritarian, even though the company in question may be organized in a hierarchical fashion)?
Then why didn’t you before?
I’ve been relaxed this whole time. But I’m not inclined to believe anything you say here.
The funny thing to me is that you’re supporting my point with most of the above, however unintentionally that may be. However, it’s certainly possible for someone to attach a sound (really a particular combination of sounds) to a different object or concept from the one he’s used to attaching it to. His willingness to do so in any given situation is another matter entirely.
Let’s say I’m trying to communicate with someone and I don’t understand what he’s saying. He points at a closed door and says, “La puerta está cierta.” I shrug my shoulders, not understanding. He walks over to the door and pats it with his hand. “La puerta,” he says. So I figure that’s his way of referring to the door. He opens it and says, “Está abierta.” Then he closes it and says, “Está cierta.” So I figure the latter is his way of referring to the door being closed. “La puerta está cierta,” I say, and he smiles and nods his head. “The door is closed,” I then say, to inform him of my way of referring to the same thing.
Now, which way of referring to the closed door is correct? The concept remains the same, but each of us has a different way of expressing it. In order to communicate, either I must use his way of expressing things, or he must use mine. Who uses which doesn’t matter. What I think you’re doing is insisting that I use your way of expressing certain things rather than vice-versa. You think that should be the case because you believe your way of expressing those things has been around longer. The thing is, I don’t have to care about that - not to the same extent that you do, and in fact, not at all. Furthermore, I don’t have to care about communicating with you, period.
You say that “a group of folks decided to call their theories ‘libertarian’ or ‘anarchist’, and which have specific criteria for being either of these, oneof the main ones being that one is anti-hierarchical relations and is anti-capitalist”. Okay. How does that prevent a separate group of folks from calling their different theories by the same terms? The answer is that it doesn’t. Do you believe the first group somehow owns the words “libertarian” and “anarchist”, thus giving them the right to compel others to use those words the way they want them to be used?
You can doubt it all you want. As far as I’m concerned, you’ve definitely strawmanned my position. It’s up to you whether to (try to) convince me otherwise - if you even care about that.
Nowhere did I assert that I’d be using the term “bachelor” incorrectly, so your statement that you agree is tantamount to putting words in my mouth. I’d appreciate it if you didn’t do that. As I see it, there’s a big difference between “using a word in a way that differs from one or more other people’s usage” and “using a word in a (factually) incorrect manner”. The former is possible, while the latter is not. Words don’t attach themselves to objects/concepts, and objects/concepts don’t attach themselves to words.
First off, I’ll again note that I see a big difference between using a word unconventionally and using a word incorrectly. To me, the former in no way implies the latter. Second, what exactly makes the definitions of “libertarian” and “anarchist” that you happen to like the conventional definitions? As I see it, those definitions are no more conventional than the ones that I happen to like. Furthermore, just what “convention” are you talking about here? That is, what specific group of people are you placing under consideration?
Apparently you do know what I’m talking about with my use of the phrase “inherent truth”. But how is convention different from opinion? I see no qualitative difference - a convention is simply a situation where “most” people have the same or similar opinions on something. How is one bound to follow a given convention? He isn’t. It’s not incorrect in a factual sense to not follow a given convention. Factual correctness/incorrectness simply doesn’t apply to that.
Furthermore, I don’t think the convention you have in mind is that commonly known as “the English language”. Rather, I think the convention you have in mind is the group of people who use the same definitions for “libertarian” and “anarchist” that you use. I imagine that’s a much smaller convention than “the English language”. So as I see it, this all boils down to you and your ilk wanting to control how people in general define those words. The funny thing is (at least IMO), such control is impossible, so you’re chasing after an illusion. Once again, good luck with that.
Because you’re the one who doesn’t like it.
Sure it does. It has everything to do with it.
What problem is that, exactly? Oh, right - the problem of using a definition that you don’t like for a certain word. But that’s actually your problem, because, as I said before, you’re the one who doesn’t like the definition they’re using! They apparently have no problem with it.
The wrongness of the violinist’s note is not a fact. It’s a subjective value judgement imputed by the listener. So that makes it the listener’s problem. Thanks for supporting my point (however unintentionally).
“Sort of like how a person with an ear for music, upon hearing a voilinist hit a screechingly horrible wrong note, might wince and feel sorry for the violinist, especially if he kept doing it over and over again not believing himself to have hit the wrong note.” kropotkinbeard
z1235
“Then the person with an “ear for music” would have the problem of being a masochist for continuing to listen to the horrible note “over and over again”. No one would have a problem if he simply left the room (unless he owned it, in which case he would kindly ask the violinist to leave). Property rights evolved as means toward peaceful conflict resolution (minimizing problems) – the ultimate incarnation of “live and let live”.”
Again, it has nothing to do with him having a problem any more than it would be a problem for me to hear my Japanese students making the same mistakes over and over. It’s not ‘a problem’ for me at all. It’s a problem for them as they’re making mistakes over and over. They need to study more so as not to make the same mistakes. When they’ve done this, and are not making the same mistakes, the problem is gone.
Also, yes, if everyone left the room the violinist would still have the problem of playing the wrong note, regardless of whether he was aware of it or not.
Not sure what the notion of “property rights” has to do with anything being discussed here. Was there some connection? But, yes, creating rights in order to put the brakes on pillaging and plundering probably had a few positive results. But then again property has probably caused much more harm in the world than it has prevented. Also, owning “property” means taking from others, which, is of course ‘theft’ and infringing upon other’s freedom and rights. Are we discussing “personal property”, “land”, “intellectual”, or what? Personally claiming something which belongs to everyone is nothing but theft.
If you actually agree that all definitions are subjective (regardless of how many people agree on which definitions), then what are we arguing about? Apparently it’s really all about what leftists call “power relations”, which is what their version of “raising awareness” is all about. That is, you and your ilk are trying to “gain power” over me and my ilk where we’re somehow forced to use the definitions of “libertarian” and “anarchist” that you and your ilk happen to prefer. Good luck with that.
If the image of a basketball popped into my head when I hear “cat”, then it’s still a word with a meaning. It just has a different meaning to me from the meaning it has to you. Nothing about a cat itself requires “cat” to be used to refer to it. Likewise, nothing about “cat” itself requires it to be used to refer to a cat.
You may have. To me, the notion of “using a word correctly/incorrectly” erases subjectivity from the whole thing. Likewise, it seemed that his appeal to some words having more fixed meanings than others was meant as a counter to the idea that definitions are subjective.
Yes, that’s what I’m trying to argue. Like I said before, nothing about “cat” requires it to be used to refer to a cat, and nothing about a cat requires “cat” to be used to refer to it. (Strictly speaking, of course, “2”, “4”, “+”, and “=” are symbols just as much as “cat” is.)
Interesting. So someone could “have a problem” while being completely unaware of it? If not his, then whose is the problem that the violinist apparently “has”?
Well they did nicely resolve any problem you may have with a vilonist not playing according to your taste, no?
How do you think rights get “created”? Who creates them, in your opinion?
Without the concepts of property and voluntary exchange of same (including division of labor and trade) neither of us would be alive today, much less being able to discuss this on laptops via the internetz.
What freedoms and rights would those be? Where did they come from?
How could something belong to anyone if the concept of property was non-existent? Define “everyone”.
Why would it be “my problem” simply because I don’t like hearing someone using a word incorrectly?
Autolykos
“Because you’re the one who doesn’t like it.”
This doesn’t make it my problem at all. If a student keeps making mistakes over and over, and I don’t like it because it anoys me, and I want them to not make the mistakes, it’s not my problem in any way, shape, or form. It’s their problem, and once they correct it, their problem goes away and I’m no longer annoyed by their mistakes. And, no, my having been annoyed wasn’t a problem at all.
Has nothing to do with my having a “problem”.
Autolykos
“Sure it does. It has everything to do with it.”
No, it doesn’t. And that wasn’t an argument. Or perhaps you’re saying that it would be a problem for you?
It has to do with their having a problem, and in the case with the non-existent category [sic] of “anarcho”-capitalst, not being aware of it.
Autolykos
“What problem is that, exactly? Oh, right - the problem of using a definition that you don’t like for a certain word. But that’s actually your problem, because, as I said before, you’re the one who doesn’t like the definition they’re using!” They apparently have no problem with it."
And, you’re still having difficulty here. It has nothing to do with “using a definition I don’t like”. It has nothing to do with my “liking” it or not. It has to do with a person not using the term correctly. Again, this is their problem. Here, let’s try to make it simple: A guy comes running out of his apartment screaming “Apple! Apple!” Everyone passing by looks at him as if he’s insane. He looks back at them not understanding their seemingly unconcerned response. Meanwhile, his apartment burns down because no one understood his “subjective” and unconventional usage of the term “apple”, thereby not being able to get the assitance that he would surely have gotten had he used the appropriate term “fire”. Hence, this IS his problem, and not the problem of the folks who may have been slightly annoyed by his pathological behavior.
Sort of like how a person with an ear for music, upon hearing a voilinist hit a screechingly horrible wrong [sic] note, might wince and feel sorry for the violinist, especially if he kept doing it over and over again not believing himself to have hit the wrong note.
Autolykos
“The wrongness of the violinist’s note is not a fact.”
Yes, it is a fact. The note was written on the page. There was a correct way to play it and an incorrect. He didn’t hit the correct note. Period. This is a fact. But I guess if he just “subjectively” wants to read the notes in an unconventional way, then it’s everyone else’s problem, right? Again, not quite. The violinist has a problem and needs to correct it. Or he can be dishonest and claim to have been purposely playing atonal music because he didn’t have to do what the “collective” orchestra did. You know, thinking this demonstrated some sort of “freedom” and “liberty” from the “tyranny of the musician majority”?
Autolykos
“It’s a subjective value judgement imputed by the listener.”
Has nothing to do with “value” anything, nor is it subjective. It’s an objective fact that a certain note was to be played at a certain point in time and according to the music written on the paper. The listeners heard correctly, and they heard the wrong note. Then, upon looking at the sheet music just to make sure that note wasn’t supposed to be played, they see that they were correct, and te violinist was wrong. Hence, it was his problem, and he should fix it.
Autolykos
“So that makes it the listener’s problem. Thanks for supporting my point (however unintentionally)”
Again, you spoke before knowing what you were doing. This is your problem as well. None of the listeners had a problem at all. They simply recognized the violinists problem. They probably all pitched in to then try and get him extra lessons so as to assist when helping him to remove his problem.
Now, you’ve been working very hard at not responding to the most relevant arguments I’ve made, one being that of our apparent ability to communicate without objectivity in language. You asserted earlier, most definitely before thinking it through, that language was relative. Now, explain how communication takes place?
Well technically, it depends on how you define “problem”. You don’t think being annoyed with something is a problem for you?
I disagree. Generally speaking, your problem is that you’re annoyed that the student keeps doing something that you don’t expect him to do.
Would you say that the student made you feel annoyed? Is that why you think your annoyance is his problem and not yours?
No, I was saying that I disagree with you, and that I have a different point of view.
I am? That’s news to me. I don’t feel like I’m having difficulty. I guess you know better than I do, though.
Sure, his apartment burning down is his problem. But if a person is annoyed by him screaming “Apple! Apple!”, that’s that person’s problem (as I see it).
What’s a fact is that a particular note was written down, and that the violinist did not play that note. Now, if you’re defining the term “playing correctly” as “playing the notes as written”, then no, the violinist did not play correctly. But no one’s bound to use that definition for “playing correctly”. Furthermore, no one’s bound to be annoyed when the violinist doesn’t “play correctly” under that definition.
Whether a person is annoyed by something is up to him, isn’t it? That’s what makes it his problem, in my view. And I fail to see how not living up to someone else’s expectations necessarily constitutes “being dishonest”.
Yes it is. No one has to define “playing correctly” the way you (apparently) define it.
It’s an objective fact that certain notes were written on the paper. It may also be an objective fact that one or more other people expected the violinist to play certain notes at certain times (i.e. notes consistent with what was written down). However, there’s no correctness nor incorrectness with having that expectation per se. That is to say, expectations exist entirely within the mind - in other words, they’re subjective. Here’s another way to put it: the notes themselves have no expectations, let alone any ability to will a person to do anything.
I don’t see myself as having a problem here. You asserting otherwise is not going to change that.
I disagree. I see their annoyance as their problem. The violinist isn’t responsible for that.
We’ve already covered how communication takes place, I believe. (I think you missed a couple posts I made, namely this one and this one.) You’re simply dissatisfied (annoyed?) that I’m not acting in accordance with your expectations. You furthermore think this is my problem, as though your dissatisfaction somehow obligates me to act differently. Good luck with that.
The hilarious thing, as I see it, is that you call yourself “anti-authoritarian”, yet you’re clearly trying to make me feel as though you have some sort of authority over me.
Re: To AnCaps: are minarchists really libertarians?
By Johnny Doe in Political Theory
kropotkinbeard:
One can’t be anti-authoritarian and capitalist as the capitalist relationship is a hierarchical relationship. Period. Now, there are several ways to deal with this inconvient fact if you’re a capitalist looking for a way to square a circle, that is, hijack the term libertarian/anarchist and marry it to capitalism. One way is simply to pretend that the relationship is not hierarchical, when it is nothing but, unless, perhaps, one is working strictly for themselves, which is almost never the case. But this would simply be delusional. Another way is to simply ignore this inherent conflict, take the anti-authoritarian aspects (thinking of them as being primarily anti-state) of anarchism/libertarianism, and pretend that this is “libertarian” or “anarchist”, which it is not. We’ve already had a good demonstration here by a (linguistic relativist) fellow beliving that words mean nothing, and that calling oneself bachelor, if he is married, isn’t a problem for him, but rather a problem for the folks who think he’s using the term “bachelor” incorrectly. If you assume this “logic”, yeah, you could be a capitalist and anti-authoritarian in the same way as you could be married and a bachelor.
“Doesn`t it make any difference if the hierarchical relationship is voluntary or not, i.e. one can choose to be employed by a company, or choose not to be employed by a company in a society without government intervention in regards to production/trade etc(not authoritarian, even though the company in question may be organized in a hierarchical fashion)?”
Well, it depends on whether or not one believes that hierarchical relationships are a good thing. Libertarians/anarchist/socialist/communist usually do not believe them to be a good thing, as such relationships are antithetical to liberty and freedom. If there is a choice between starving or selling your labor for someone else to profit off of, then it is not really “voluntary”. It’s coercion, to use one of the favorite terms of the phony libertarian i.e.propertarians. Allowing someone to choose between masters is hardly any sort of “freedom” in any real sense. This is just trivially basic libertarian/anarchist/socialist/communist thought, and always has been. Secondly, if the society is a free and functioning democracy, as any anarchist would demand as the absolute first step, and for obvious reasons, there is no “us”(the people) vs. “them”(the government) dichotomy. This is a false dichotomy. Besides, capitalism has never functioned at all with a state to support it other than in a few 4th world messes around the world, so I’m not sure how on earth anyone would ever dream of moving more in that direction. If there exists a “hierarchical” stucture of any kind any anarchist would simply be against it, as would any libertarian. Different people may have different responsibilities arranged horizontally, but vertical is out, unless that is, everyone votes to have a hierarchical scenario. But what rational person would every dream of doing that? Surely no one to which freedom and liberty are important.
Voluntary relationships are inherently egalitarian, as each party in the relationship has veto power over the entire arrangement.
While this is literally true, I suspect that you, like other anti-propertarians (aka thieves) are equivocating on the meaning of “starving.” the production of food requires work and people who wish to live at the expense of others (socialists, communists, thieves etc.) only have three options: thievery, requiring stealth; robbery, requiring brute force; and fraud, requiring deception (there is a fourth option, combination of two or three of the former). One of the many lies supporting the fraud of communism is the idea that “not being fed by the government” is the same thing as “starving to death.” no one said you had to sell your labor to anyone, you are free to seek a loan and start a business, or continue to suck on momma’s tit for the rest of your life. You can even ask me for money, just dont come back with guns when I say “no.”