Private Social Media Platform
4 => Discussions; Public Archive => Topic started by: Dale Eastman on December 20, 2022, 10:10:34 AM
-
https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid0nGbAcPam7WyWhLaWr6ZZPwP8dsueRYAPGvGJ5gBUJ2zu6BJx4yD2kteq4feEA87Al
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=851149186215764&set=gm.3314460482108521&idorvanity=1956067967947786
file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/FB%20related%20or%20used/doSH/315099590_5582416698503056_4354517781449167029_n.jpg
<Snarcasm>
You mean what SH was taught in school?
</Snarcasm>
😁
➽ [My sister] and I were both home schooled, or "unschooled". FYI. 😘
Yeah, but somehow we both went to college and saw a very different theater.
Part of the reason I didn't want to keep going and continued my self education instead.
I recall the discussion you and your sister had. I put my 2 cents in early in that thread. You wanted no interaction with me, so I just sat back and observed. Because of what you presented, this original post simply reminded me of your words. It is only because Debra did the original post that I recalled your words. Had it been anyone else in my community of liberty minded folks, I doubt I would have recalled your words.
Being reminded of how you lucked out of the government indoctrination centers, I find myself amazed at how, dare I say, inculcated the beliefs you presented were (and I assume still are).
You are not a member of the remnant... Dialog is if you will it.
Actually, this post wasn't directed to my sister (or anyone in particular), but I did remember the above referenced discussion when you commented here.
Googling a bunch of stuff which confirms your biases, and disregarding anything which causes cognitive dissonance, is NOT education. Having your core beliefs and values examined and challenged is good for you. It's good for your mind, it's good for your mental health, it's good for critical thinking, it's good for developing a well-rounded understanding of life and the world. I don't mean behind a screen, I mean face to face, real life, real actions with real consequences type of stuff.
If I had not fulfilled two degrees, I would never have studied some of the subjects I studied. I just wouldn't have, because those subjects were so foreign or obscure to me. I would never have had to think those thoughts, expand my mind the way I did. I loved every minute of my college experiences (pleural because I got my degrees a full decade apart), and plan on taking some classes this spring just for fun, and next fall I'm starting on a program to advance one of my degrees (either general science or biology, I haven't decided yet).
I really can't understand why learning a subject from a master of that subject is such a bad thing. J wants to learn to ride a horse, so I'm taking her to a stable with instructors who are experts in all things equine. Not to, say, some guy with a zebra in the back alley. Ya know?
The more you learn, the more you realize you know nothing. That's actually true. Chemistry and biology are beyond fascinating, but they are not a weekend read, if you know what I mean. No way in heck would I try to tackle that myself. And what would be the point? I can't actually get a job teaching or doing lab work being "self taught".
Whatever negative experience you had in college, I wish you could look beyond that and not paint everything with such a broad brush. I don't know what happened that made you feel so negative, but maybe the environment wasn't good. I don't know.
I really can't understand why learning a subject from a master of that subject is such a bad thing. Shat things exactly, are mainstream news casters master of?
Prussian Method of schooling.
Dale Eastman wow I'm flattered that I'm so memorable. 🤷🏼♀️ I think I remember you. You're that guy who uses a lot of words to say very little.
I'll take your reply as an intention to discuss "things". Thank you.
Use less words... Got it ✔
So if you don't understand the points I present, you need to ask me to clarify.
Of course, if you don't comprehend the point(s) I present, I will figure it out from any non-sequitur responses you post. If that happens I will be asking questions about what you mean with your words. So... Lots of questions back and forth to come to an understanding?
Are you for liberty or are you for slavery?
-
Dale Eastman look man, I've already had this exact same conversation about a thousand times with my sister. At this point, it's just tiring. I'm for a well-regulated government run by The People. I don't believe in black and white, right vs wrong. Nearly every single thing in life is shades of gray, nuance. There are almost no absolutes. Plus, y'all tend to change the definition of words to whatever fits your agenda. So when you ask a question like "are you for liberty, or are you for slavery", I tend to just roll my eyes and think "here we go again". Because it's not an either-or question. And anarchists love to paint everything in absolutes, in either-or, when almost nothing in life is absolute/either-or. At the same time, when stuck in a corner, y'all just move the goalposts. Get my drift? It's a fool's game. My position is that anarchy, especially in the US, is a very bad, terrible, awful idea, and that position won't change because I've already done the mental work required to determine what I think of it. Just read about what is happening in Iran right now and maybe you'll be more appreciative of the soil we stand on. I don't know. But I don't know you, you don't know me, and it's not my job to convince you of anything. And vice versa. The only reason I continue to have this exact same conversation with my sister over and over is because I love her and care about her welfare, along with the welfare of her husband and children. I want all of them safe. And nothing you can say is going to convince me that anarchy is safer than the extreme privilege we already have in this country.
Thank you for your reply.
You've given me much to work with.
➽ Plus, y'all tend to change the definition of words to whatever fits your agenda.
Please present your evidence that I am one of "y'all".
Gasorminumplaz.
A higher level educated person such as your self must surely be aware of what is referred to as "Voltaire's Admonition."
Paraphrased as: If you wish to communicate, first define your terms.
➽ Because it's [liberty or slavery] not an either-or question.
I understand why you take that position. So for this moment I agree with you. You are not aware of the connecting dots. So I cleave the question and focus on just the one half.
Are you for slavery?
-
I guess I wasn't clear. I was explaining to you why I'm not having a discussion with you. It's a waste of my time and energy. I'm wrapping presents and feeding brunch to my kids and have no desire to engage in yet another debate on a topic I am already well-informed about and know where I stand.
➽ I guess I wasn't clear.
You were VERY clear that you are FOR slavery and ENSLAVEMENT of humans.
-
Meaningless gif
✓ ✔ ✗
➽ Meaningless gif
I stated:
⚡You were VERY clear that you are FOR slavery and ENSLAVEMENT of humans.⚡
Your failure to deny, IS your admission that I am correct.
You're busy... I don't need any immediate responses. I can wait.
Just make sure you tag me when you do have time to engage.
-
>"Googling a bunch of stuff which confirms your biases, and disregarding anything which causes cognitive dissonance, is NOT education. "
\\ I agree. And I didn't. I learned something that greatly, and in some cases, completely contradicted what I thought I knew. I was just as statist as you...only I was on the other wing, but it was the same big, ugly bird.
>"I really can't understand why learning a subject from a master of that subject is such a bad thing. J wants to learn to ride a horse, so I'm taking her to a stable with instructors who are experts in all things equine. Not to, say, some guy with a zebra in the back alley. Ya know?"
\\ Actually that guy in the back alley with a zebra is way more of a master :3
I also didn't say I didn't want to learn from someone who wasn't a master. Also, things that are self evident should be discoverable in and of themselves.
>"The more you learn, the more you realize you know nothing. That's actually true. Chemistry and biology are beyond fascinating, but they are not a weekend read, if you know what I mean. No way in heck would I try to tackle that myself. And what would be the point? I can't actually get a job teaching or doing lab work being "self taught"."
\\ Yeah, I know I am quite stupid. I often wonder how I could be so stupid and still be breathing 😉
Actually I do think I am a slow learner, I've rejected and argued against a lot of what I now know to be true.
And you'd be very surprised how much respect you can get, especially in some fields, being self taught.
>"Whatever negative experience you had in college, I wish you could look beyond that and not paint everything with such a broad brush. I don't know what happened that made you feel so negative, but maybe the environment wasn't good. I don't know."
\\ I never said I had a bad experience, I said I saw a theater. See: Plato's allegory of the cave.
The rest of this post is more in response to things you said to Dale...
-
OP MEME:When you've been down so many rabbit holes for more hours than you care to remember and the person you're arguing with says, "You need to do some research."
Why do I think of your sis when I read this?
🤔I don't know. 😜
Dale Eastman because deep down you know that spending hours poking around at spurious sources (that reinforce your preconceived ideas) on the internet is not "research".
I would love to have an honest discussion with you.
I'm all about Socratic Questions.
For instance: What preconceived ideas have you preconceived that I have?
Out of curiosity, what is your definition of acceptable research topic?
it isn't the ideas we are talking about. It is the method you use to reinforce what you want to believe. Confirmation bias and all that. Self-directed "research" is usually sorely weighted in the direction one was already leaning; rarely are learners objective and critical enough to change their stance, even when presented with mountains of evidence to the contrary of what they already believe. For example, I want to believe that eating organic food is better for me, so I Google selectively to find articles that back up my claim, and breeze past anything that refutes or suggests I may be wrong. We all have a tendency to do this, and recognizing that is incredibly important to maintaining an objective and critical mind.
again, it's not the topic, but the method of research.
Btw the word "research" is so overused and misused, IMHO. But that's another conversation.
-
𝓢: you know that spending hours poking around at spurious sources (that reinforce your preconceived ideas) on the internet is not "research"
Ah... I must call you on that specific assumption. You are simply wrong on that point.
What, specifically, are the "preconceived ideas" that you have preconceived that I have?
This is the second time I have inquired on this point.
This was the first inquiry:
𝓓: What preconceived ideas have you preconceived that I have?
𝓢: it isn't the ideas we are talking about. It is the method you use to reinforce what you want to believe.
I DO NOT WANT to believe what I believe. Ignorance is bliss and I have NOT been a blissful person going back to 2005 when I first started my website.
And that belief is? (Inquiry 2.1 not counted.)
𝓢: Confirmation bias and all that.
Yes, I understand what confirmation bias is.
I would like you to know that I actually seek out those with opposite beliefs and biases for discussion. You are one such person.
So... Interacting with you is not really me doing confirmation bias research is it. (Rhetorical. No Q mark)
𝓢: Self-directed "research" is usually sorely weighted in the direction one was already leaning;
Agreed.
𝓢: rarely are learners objective and critical enough to change their stance, even when presented with mountains of evidence to the contrary of what they already believe.
Physician heal thyself.
What do you 𝓫𝓮𝓵𝓲𝓮𝓿𝓮 slavery is?
So you DO believe that spending hours poking around at spurious sources (that reinforce your preconceived ideas) on the internet IS research? OK.
I don't' know what all your preconceived ideas are, considering how ambiguous they have appeared to be in the past. Plus I'm not one to assume what you believe in this moment. All I can respond to is your stated belief that "research" is apparently whatever you want it to be. Research is not merely gathering information. Research is not the rearrangement or restatement of known knowledge. Research is not rummaging around for hard-to-find information, or searching through records to discover what one does not previously know. Research is not transferring facts from one location to another. Research is a systematic and organized, step-by-step process that is used by researchers to find answers to questions or to solve problems. It is unbiased and it is not based on simply reading all the research that other people have done. This is why I never say "do your own research", because the word "research" has been hijacked by Google Academy students who think they know something because they have access to the internet. I prefer to say "educate yourself", since that implies closer to what we are actually doing when we read other peoples' works. With the caveat, of course, that we are actually reading something credible.
"I DO NOT WANT to believe what I believe. Ignorance is bliss and I have NOT been a blissful person going back to 2005 when I first started my website." Why don't you want to believe what you believe? What belief are you talking about? Natural Law seems pretty darn idealistic to me, so I imagine you are not talking about that.
"Yes, I understand what confirmation bias is.
I would like you to know that I actually seek out those with opposite beliefs and biases for discussion. You are one such person.
So... Interacting with you is not really me doing confirmation bias research is it. (Rhetorical. No Q mark)". Arguing with people on the internet, again, is not research. In fact, providing you an audience probably only reinforces your beliefs since you now get to subject someone to listening to your dogma.
I have attached an article you may find interesting. Or not. Up to you.
"What do you 𝓫𝓮𝓵𝓲𝓮𝓿𝓮 slavery is?" OK, I'll bite. Slavery is forcing people to work without pay. Selling human beings. Selling children while their mother screams for them. Forcing people to reproduce together to get the offspring wanted. Being fed only what is provided. Treating a certain class, color, or type of human as if they are animals. Worse than animals, in some cases.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-convince-someone-when-facts-fail/
Thank you for your reply.
Please 'scuse me for a moment while I read the page you graciously provided a link to.
Having, in fairness and respect for you as another human, read the article you linked, I am going to comment on the first paragraph of the article.
SA: 𝓗𝓪𝓿𝓮 𝔂𝓸𝓾 𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻 𝓷𝓸𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓮𝓭 𝓽𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝔀𝓱𝓮𝓷 𝔂𝓸𝓾 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓽 𝓹𝓮𝓸𝓹𝓵𝓮 𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱 𝓯𝓪𝓬𝓽𝓼 𝓽𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓪𝓻𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓻𝔂 𝓽𝓸 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓲𝓻 𝓭𝓮𝓮𝓹𝓮𝓼𝓽 𝓱𝓮𝓵𝓭 𝓫𝓮𝓵𝓲𝓮𝓯𝓼 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝔂 𝓪𝓵𝔀𝓪𝔂𝓼 𝓬𝓱𝓪𝓷𝓰𝓮 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓲𝓻 𝓶𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓼? 𝓜𝓮 𝓷𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻. 𝓘𝓷 𝓯𝓪𝓬𝓽, 𝓹𝓮𝓸𝓹𝓵𝓮 𝓼𝓮𝓮𝓶 𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓸𝓾𝓫𝓵𝓮 𝓭𝓸𝔀𝓷 𝓸𝓷 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓲𝓻 𝓫𝓮𝓵𝓲𝓮𝓯𝓼 𝓲𝓷 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓽𝓮𝓮𝓽𝓱 𝓸𝓯 𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓻𝔀𝓱𝓮𝓵𝓶𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓮 𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓲𝓷𝓼𝓽 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓶. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓼𝓸𝓷 𝓲𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓽𝓸 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝔀𝓸𝓻𝓵𝓭𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓬𝓮𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓭 𝓽𝓸 𝓫𝓮 𝓾𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓻 𝓽𝓱𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓽 𝓫𝔂 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓯𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓪.
I find the very first paragraph so ironic.
To be fair to you, the issue of what the specific conflicting data is has not been nailed down and agreed to as the point(s) of contention.
𝓢: I don't' know what all your preconceived ideas are, considering how ambiguous they have appeared to be in the past.
That is a fair FIRST impression... True. I agree with you...
In the past...
21 December:
𝓢: Because it's [liberty or slavery] not an either-or question.
𝓢: All I can respond SNIP!
I decline to follow that selection of Red Herrings.
𝓓: I DO NOT WANT to believe what I believe.
𝓢: Why don't you want to believe what you believe?
Let me clear up the communication error based upon my "ambiguous" appearance... Mea culpa.
I do not want to believe what logic has dictated to me as a conclusion to actually thinking about and analyzing information presented to me by living on planet Earth.
𝓢: What belief are you talking about?
Again, mea culpa. Not a belief... A conclusion... Several conclusions.
𝓢: Natural Law seems pretty darn idealistic to me, so I imagine you are not talking about that.
I'm just going to state at this time: You and I do NOT have an agreement as to what, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of Natural Law.
𝓢: In fact, providing you an audience probably only reinforces your beliefs since you now get to subject someone to listening to your dogma.
The fact you stated in that sentence is the fact that you stated your preconceived idea about what you assume is (my) dogma. The fact you stated is that your opinion is "..."
𝓢: Slavery is forcing people to work without pay. [...] Treating a certain class, color, or type of human as if they are animals. Worse than animals, in some cases.
I think we have a consensus if you do not find my meaning contradictory to yours.
𝔸 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕚𝕤 𝕒 𝕙𝕦𝕞𝕒𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕖 𝕠𝕨𝕟𝕖𝕣'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝.
𝓓:
𝓢:
-
Dale Eastman being ambiguous and cryptic is a defense mechanism I realize, but you are never going to get your point across by being so deliberately obscure. Perhaps you didn't understand the article, or perhaps it caused you enough cognitive dissonance that you decided to reframe it to your liking. Either way, I didn't expect you to like it much, I just hoped that you might glean a glimmer of insight into your own bias. Oh well.
I won't respond to that kind of baiting, by the way, but I'll respond to your last question because it is relatively clear.
No, I don't agree with that definition of slavery. Ever see one of those logic problems that goes something like "If all As are Bs, and some Bs are Cs, are all Cs also As?". In this case, all slaves have another human imposing their will on them, but not all people imposing their will on others are slave owners (and not every person acquiescing to another's will is a slave). Every single human relationship that exists is in a constant flux of will. Parents/kids, employer/employee, doctor/patient, heck even the ticket counter at Disneyland. Of course the best example here is the employer/employee relationship, since an employee acquiesces to their employer's wishes. But in return, the employer must pay the employee. The employer must also ensure a safe workplace, provide benefits to full time employees, provide protection from workplace harassment, etc. And both the employer and employee are free to terminate the professional relationship. So while they both experience a give and take of wills, no one is a slave in this situation.
Dale Eastman I will add that you are 100% correct that we do not have an agreement regarding what natural law is. But it is very simple: you believe that natural law exists. I do not. It is no more persuasive or relevant than any other philosophy invented by mankind. Some people need philosophy or religion to help guide them in life, others do not. To insist that any one philosophy applies to all people is silly, since we can easily look around the world or even just our country to see that isn't true. Natural law seems to consume your entire existence, while it is simply noise in the background to most, same as any other philosophy or religion.
Since you have decided to engage, thank you.
I insist that you notify me of any thing I post that appears disrespectful of you.
𝓢: being ambiguous and cryptic is a defense mechanism I realize, but you are never going to get your point across by being so deliberately obscure.
I understand and agree with that. What you do not know just yet, is what this defense mechanism is about. I hope to apprise you of that so you will know why I have been ambiguous and cryptic. Just not yet.
𝓢: Perhaps you didn't understand the article, or perhaps it caused you enough cognitive dissonance that you decided to reframe it to your liking. Either way, I didn't expect you to like it much, I just hoped that you might glean a glimmer of insight into your own bias.
You and I are in a manner of speaking, getting to know one another. I am acutely aware of my bias(es). I am a square peg attempting to fit in the round hole of U.S. and World society. Yes Ma'am, ambiguous and cryptic yet again.
𝓢: No, I don't agree with that definition of slavery.
Apparently, not many do. Thank you for the admission, and more so for giving the reasons.
𝓢: In this case, all slaves have another human imposing their will on them, but not all people imposing their will on others are slave owners (and not every person acquiescing to another's will is a slave). Every single human relationship that exists is in a constant flux of will. Parents/kids, employer/employee, doctor/patient, heck even the ticket counter at Disneyland. Of course the best example here is the employer/employee relationship, since an employee acquiesces to their employer's wishes. But in return, the employer must pay the employee. The employer must also ensure a safe workplace, provide benefits to full time employees, provide protection from workplace harassment, etc. And both the employer and employee are free to terminate the professional relationship. So while they both experience a give and take of wills, no one is a slave in this situation.
I actually agree with everything you have written. Every concept stated is true.
But... (But is a connective that in essence, erases the prior words.)
You have NOT refuted my very specific set of words and their very specific concept.
I will now examine some your words in light of my definition: 𝔸 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕚𝕤 𝕒 𝕙𝕦𝕞𝕒𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕖 𝕠𝕨𝕟𝕖𝕣'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝.
𝓢: and not every person acquiescing to another's will is a slave
The spectrum of gray is 1% white and 99% black. to 99% white and 1% black. If partial black, not white. If partial enslaved, not free, not at liberty.
file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/Gradient.jpg
Wordnik: acquiesce: intransitive verb: To consent or comply passively or without protest: synonym: assent.
To consent, comply, or assent is a free will choice. To do the opposite is also a free will choice. Having that choice removed is enslavement.
𝓢: Of course the best example here is the employer/employee relationship, since an employee acquiesces to their employer's wishes.
Yes. They do. Yes. I did. And yes I still do.
But...
An employer won't have you whipped for refusing to pick cotton or for refusing to do any thing else you are commanded to do. An employer won't send men with guns to drag you back to the place you worked.
𝓢: I will add that you are 100% correct that we do not have an agreement regarding what natural law is. But it is very simple: you believe that natural law exists. I do not.
You and I agree that you and I do not agree. Fair enough.
You and I have not come to terms on what Natural Law is. To appropriate from Algebra, you and I do not agree on what ❎ is. You and I have not come to terms on what, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of ❎?
In order to not have this discussion spill into more back and forth, I am going to bracket my answers that I assume would be your answer. If I err, you should call me on that error immediately. If my assumption(s) are correct, continue reading.
Do you have a "right" to life? {Yes.}
Do you have a "right" to protect your life? {Yes.}
This question contains a small bit of a morality question.
Do you have a "right" to use the minimum defensive force necessary to stop the attacker from stealing your life?
Dale Eastman I'm a very straightforward person. I'm also a pragmatist. When people are cryptic and ambiguous, I feel that they are a)wasting my time, and b) probably attempting to manipulate/gaslight me.
I don't agree with the 99%/1% idea. And I bet that people who are actually enslaved wouldn't agree with it, either.
An employee who refuses to acquiesce, too, will be punished by being written up, lose their job, etc. So while it may seem as though an employee maintains free will, if you have ever worked, you might know that's not entirely true.
"You and I have not come to terms on what natural law is." I don't care. I don't care, because it doesn't exist. For me, it's like discussing the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics, and elements of the tooth fairy.
Do you have a right to life? Depends on where you live.
Do you have a right to protect your life? Depends on where you live.
Do you have a right to use the minimum force necessary to stop the attacker from stealing your life? Depends on where you live.
Rights are assigned by man. Period. Nature only cares about ability. It's not "do you have the right?" It is, instead, "do you have the ability?". Do you have the ability to kill, or ability to defend yourself. The idea of "human rights" and even "animal rights" are all invented by the minds of humans. Which is great, yay for rights. But we shouldn't take them for granted.
-
𝓢: I don't agree with the 99%/1% idea. And I bet that people who are actually enslaved wouldn't agree with it, either.
Too bad the actual slave who wrote this isn't still alive. I would bet against you.
𝓟𝓸𝔀𝓮𝓻 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓬𝓮𝓭𝓮𝓼 𝓷𝓸𝓽𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱𝓸𝓾𝓽 𝓪 𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓪𝓷𝓭. 𝓘𝓽 𝓷𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻 𝓭𝓲𝓭 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓲𝓽 𝓷𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻 𝔀𝓲𝓵𝓵. 𝓕𝓲𝓷𝓭 𝓸𝓾𝓽 𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽 𝔀𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓪𝓷𝔂 𝓹𝓮𝓸𝓹𝓵𝓮 𝔀𝓲𝓵𝓵 𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓮𝓽𝓵𝔂 𝓼𝓾𝓫𝓶𝓲𝓽 𝓽𝓸 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔂𝓸𝓾 𝓱𝓪𝓿𝓮 𝓯𝓸𝓾𝓷𝓭 𝓸𝓾𝓽 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓮𝔁𝓪𝓬𝓽 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓼𝓾𝓻𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓲𝓷𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔀𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓰 𝔀𝓱𝓲𝓬𝓱 𝔀𝓲𝓵𝓵 𝓫𝓮 𝓲𝓶𝓹𝓸𝓼𝓮𝓭 𝓾𝓹𝓸𝓷 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓶, 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓼𝓮 𝔀𝓲𝓵𝓵 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓾𝓮 𝓽𝓲𝓵𝓵 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝔂 𝓪𝓻𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱 𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻 𝔀𝓸𝓻𝓭𝓼 𝓸𝓻 𝓫𝓵𝓸𝔀𝓼, 𝓸𝓻 𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱 𝓫𝓸𝓽𝓱. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓵𝓲𝓶𝓲𝓽𝓼 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝔂𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓼 𝓪𝓻𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓬𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓮𝓭 𝓫𝔂 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓮𝓷𝓭𝓾𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓬𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝓱𝓸𝓼𝓮 𝔀𝓱𝓸𝓶 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝔂 𝓸𝓹𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓼.”
𝔸 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕚𝕤 𝕒 𝕙𝕦𝕞𝕒𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕖 𝕠𝕨𝕟𝕖𝕣'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝. It does not matter if the override is 1% of the time or 100% of the time. It does not matter if the 𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓪 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓼𝓾𝓻𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓲𝓷𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔀𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓰 is 1% of the time or 100% of the time.
Are you going to argue that having your free will overridden only 1% of the time is not 𝓪 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓼𝓾𝓻𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓲𝓷𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔀𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓰?
𝓓: Do you have a right to ...?
𝓢: Depends on where you live.
Do you have a right to breathe?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?
Do you have a right to fend off someone attempting to suffocate you?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?
If I were to attempt to suffocate you, do you have a right to fend me off?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?
Are you going to argue that if I were to attempt to suffocate you only 1% of the time, that I am not 𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓪 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓼𝓾𝓻𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓲𝓷𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔀𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓰 to you?
𝓢: An employee who refuses to acquiesce, too, will be punished by being written up, lose their job, etc. So while it may seem as though an employee maintains free will, if you have ever worked, you might know that's not entirely true.
I reject your opinion. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
I'm a Boomer. I have supported myself since I left home in '76. Honest work for honest pay. I have quit jobs because my moral standards were higher than the employer's. I'll not post what your claim, your opinion, makes me think about you and the morality you present.
𝓓: You and I have not come to terms on what natural law is.
𝓢: it doesn't exist.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
𝓢: For me, it's like discussing the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics, and elements of the tooth fairy.
𝓢: "The idea of "human rights" [...] are all invented by the minds of humans."
LOL. The tooth fairy is a human mental construct; a human concept; 𝓢: "all invented by the minds of humans."
So is Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, any corporate person... And government.
𝓢: Rights are assigned by man. Period.
I do not agree with how you have conveyed with your thoughts. I opine I think you worded it better in your next sentence. I'll return to what I take issue with below.
𝓢: The idea of "human rights" and even "animal rights" are all invented by the minds of humans.
I do agree with this statement of yours. Although, I think the animal rights concept is a result of anthropomorphization.
The fact that rights don't exist is proven anytime a pissed off bull gores and kills a matador, Not to forget scorpions, copperheads, and sundry other critters that kill humans. So much for a human right to life when the critter wins.
Rights are a human mental construct. Rights are a human concept. 𝓢: "all invented by the minds of humans." Obviously the bull has no mental capacity to understand the concept of a human's right to life.
Who assigned the Natural Right to the bull to gore the matador that is harassing and attempting to kill him?
Are you going to reject the concept of "Natural Rights"?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?
Just to hit that dead horse one more time:
Do you have a right to hold the opinions you hold?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?
Do you have a right to choose to interact with me?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?
Do you have a right to choose to ignore me?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?
"Too bad the actual slave who wrote this isn't still alive. I would bet against you."
I'd take that bet.
"Are you going to argue that having your free will overridden only 1% of the time is not 𝓪 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓼𝓾𝓻𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓲𝓷𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔀𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓰?"
Overriding another's will is the basis for plenty of wrong actions. Why do you believe it all equals "slavery"? Rape is an example. Robbery is another. Deciding that *everything* involving an imposition of will somehow equals slavery is very strange and is factually incorrect. There is no nuance here, you are simply wrong. You've decided that you get to decide the definition of words now, but you'll have to excuse those who stick with the true meaning.
"Do you have a right to breathe?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?"
I have the *ability* to breathe. Rights are a human social construct.
"Do you have a right to fend off someone attempting to suffocate you?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?"
I have both the ability and the right, in the USA.
"If I were to attempt to suffocate you, do you have a right to fend me off?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?"
Same answer as last question.
"Are you going to argue that if I were to attempt to suffocate you only 1% of the time, that I am not 𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓪 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓼𝓾𝓻𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓲𝓷𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔀𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓰 to you?"
Attempted murder or murder is always wrong. Non sequitur.
"I'm a Boomer. I have supported myself since I left home in '76. Honest work for honest pay. I have quit jobs because my moral standards were higher than the employer's. I'll not post what your claim, your opinion, makes me think about you and the morality you present."
Since we have not talked about my morals, and have only talked about the truth of the world, it is interesting that you believe you can judge my morals. But since I believe your moral compass to be lacking, I suppose it is only fair for you to make assumptions about me. I sleep very well at night knowing that, unlike you, I do not require any type of sky daddy or bullet point philosophical guidelines to tell right from wrong. It's really not that hard. Know what else is wrong? Wanting to bring about a destructive, violent society, knowing full well that many will die and suffer, just so you can espouse a ridiculous philosophical-turned-political idea.
"𝓓: You and I have not come to terms on what natural law is.
𝓢: it doesn't exist.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur."
Ok. Still doesn't exist. Do y know why you can't find proof that natural law exists? Because it doesn't exist.
"LOL. The tooth fairy is a human mental construct; a human concept; 𝓢: "all invented by the minds of humans."
So is Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, any corporate person... And government."
NOW you're getting it! All of it only exists in the minds of men. Money, certificates, degrees, ranks, titles, religion, philosophy, laws, etc etc etc. are all only possible because humans have a unique ability to form complex ideas, agree to them, and share them within their society and across societies. Humans are able to exist ONLY BECAUSE we are able to all agree to a certain imaginary "thing". For example, the entire world runs on money, but money doesn't actually exist. We all just agree that this substance (gold, silver, pears, rice, cookies, brandy, etc) is worth this much, and this work is worth this much, and employees should be paid this way, while CEOs should be paid this way, etc etc etc etc. Now, even though money is imaginary, what do you think would happen if all money in the world disappeared? Society would collapse. The same thing would happen if you removed the ability to recognize education with a degree, or training with a certificate. Same thing if you removed government.
"𝓢: Rights are assigned by man. Period.
I do not agree with how you have conveyed with your thoughts. I opine I think you worded it better in your next sentence. I'll return to what I take issue with below."
🤷🏼♀️
"𝓢: The idea of "human rights" and even "animal rights" are all invented by the minds of humans.
I do agree with this statement of yours. Although, I think the animal rights concept is a result of anthropomorphization.
The fact that rights don't exist is proven anytime a pissed off bull gores and kills a matador, Not to forget scorpions, copperheads, and sundry other critters that kill humans. So much for a human right to life when the critter wins.
Rights are a human mental construct. Rights are a human concept. 𝓢: "all invented by the minds of humans." Obviously the bull has no mental capacity to understand the concept of a human's right to life.
Who assigned the Natural Right to the bull to gore the matador that is harassing and attempting to kill him?
Are you going to reject the concept of "Natural Rights"?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?""
What is your point? Humans kill other humans all the time. Yes, I absolutely completely 100% reject the idea of "natural rights". They don't exist.
"Just to hit that dead horse one more time:
Do you have a right to hold the opinions you hold?"
I have the ability to hold my opinions. In this country, I also have the right to say them out loud.
"Do you have a right to choose to interact with me?"
I have the ability.
"Do you have a right to choose to ignore me?"
I have the ability.
I don't conflate rights with ability, as you appear to do. It is very telling that many of the"rights" we take for granted in this country would equal imprisonment or death in another.
https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid02ERkQ9fuoNTy2vgau5wPUa1dhomkUBUJrTd5ohQVK2vbx6gzDq4rBDNuD33rok732l?comment_id=944471259869080&reply_comment_id=502511831989876
𝓓:
𝓢:
-
It is my right to use whatever level of escalating defensive force and violence against you that is sufficient to end your aggressive initiatory attack.
https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=660.0
Natural Law is the right to defend against depredations using whatever level of defensive or responsive harm or violence as is required to halt the initiatory and offensive harm. Natural Law was the justification for the United State's Declaration of Independence. Natural Law was also the justification for the Magna Carta. Per both these documents, any human being harmed by an alleged ruler has a Natural Law, Natural Right to halt such an alleged ruler's depredations and attacks.
https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=961.msg15406#msg15406
-
(Persons could be artificial entities, legal fictions, or flesh and blood humans.)
(I do appreciate that I don't have to explain cognitive dissonance to you.)
Notes to be moved/removed here and other post.
https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1548.msg16779#msg16779
ℙ𝔸ℝ𝕋 𝟙
𝓢: Overriding another's will is the basis for plenty of wrong actions. Why do you believe it all equals "slavery"
I appreciate the question. You are asking for clarification. Your inquiry indicates to me that you have a list of "wrong actions", as do I. I'm going to guess my list has more items than yours.
The one item that is not on my list of wrong actions is the overriding of another person's will when that other person's will is to initiate harm against a human.
𝓢: Deciding that *everything* involving an imposition of will somehow equals slavery is very strange and is factually incorrect.
You brought up "an imposition of will" in your employer-employee relationship comment. The employer is the corporate entity. The corporate entity's will is communicated to the employees as interpreted by the supervisor(s). If the collective of humans in corporate employ do not say "Our business is [...]" in essentially the same words, from the janitor to the COO/president, then that business has failed in providing a common vision for all its humans.
I allowed the "imposition of will" of an almost good enough way to conduct business for a paycheck.
I quit when the "imposition of will" was to lie to customers.
<Tangent>
Thriving on Chaos: Handbook for a Management Revolution Pub. 1987
A Passion for Excellence: The Leadership Difference Pub. 1984
In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies Pub. 1982
</Tangent>
After reading these books, I chafed at not being allowed execute perfection.
As the rule of thumb says;
FAST & CHEAP but it won’t be good quality
CHEAP & GOOD QUALITY, but it won’t be quick or on time
ON TIME and GOOD QUALITY but it cannot be CHEAP
𝓢: Deciding that *everything* involving an imposition of will somehow equals slavery is very strange and is factually incorrect. There is no nuance here, you are simply wrong.
𝓢: you are simply wrong.
I reject your opinion. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
I appreciate that you explained why that is your opinion. Thank you.
𝓢: You've decided that you get to decide the definition of words now, but you'll have to excuse those who stick with the true meaning.
For a smart person, such as you have actually proven several times over, with double diplomas to boot, I am simply aghast at your presentment of your lack of knowledge of communication. A higher level educated person such as your self must surely be aware of what is referred to as "Voltaire's Admonition." Paraphrased as: If you wish to communicate, first define your terms.
𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓶-𝔀𝓮𝓫𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓻.𝓬𝓸𝓶 › 𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓻𝔂 › 𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓻𝔂
𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓸𝓯 𝓓𝓘𝓒𝓣𝓘𝓞𝓝𝓐𝓡𝓨 𝓲𝓼 𝓪 𝓻𝓮𝓯𝓮𝓻𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓮 𝓼𝓸𝓾𝓻𝓬𝓮 𝓲𝓷 𝓹𝓻𝓲𝓷𝓽 𝓸𝓻 𝓮𝓵𝓮𝓬𝓽𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓲𝓬 𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓶 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓲𝓷𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝔀𝓸𝓻𝓭𝓼 𝓾𝓼𝓾𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓪𝓵𝓹𝓱𝓪𝓫𝓮𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓪𝓻𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓰𝓮𝓭 𝓪𝓵𝓸𝓷𝓰 𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱 𝓲𝓷𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓶𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓪𝓫𝓸𝓾𝓽 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓲𝓻 𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓶𝓼, 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓾𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓼, 𝓯𝓾𝓷𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓼, 𝔼𝕥𝕪𝕞𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕚𝕖𝕤, 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓲𝓷𝓰𝓼, 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓼𝔂𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓬 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓲𝓭𝓲𝓸𝓶𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓬 𝓾𝓼𝓮𝓼.
𝓢: but you'll have to excuse those who stick with the true meaning.
From the page the above quoted synopsis links to:
𝓖𝓮𝓽 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓶𝓸𝓼𝓽 𝓽𝓻𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓭, 𝕦𝕡-𝕥𝕠-𝕕𝕒𝕥𝕖 𝕕𝕖𝕗𝕚𝕟𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕤 𝓯𝓻𝓸𝓶 𝓜𝓮𝓻𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓶-𝓦𝓮𝓫𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓻.
"True meaning"? When? You know damn well the meanings can drift with time.
𝕖𝕥𝕪𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕝𝕚𝕟𝕖.𝕔𝕠𝕞
𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕠𝕟𝕝𝕚𝕟𝕖 𝕖𝕥𝕪𝕞𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕪 𝕕𝕚𝕔𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕒𝕣𝕪 (𝕖𝕥𝕪𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕝𝕚𝕟𝕖) 𝕚𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕚𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕣𝕟𝕖𝕥'𝕤 𝕘𝕠-𝕥𝕠 𝕤𝕠𝕦𝕣𝕔𝕖 𝕗𝕠𝕣 𝕢𝕦𝕚𝕔𝕜 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕣𝕖𝕝𝕚𝕒𝕓𝕝𝕖 𝕒𝕔𝕔𝕠𝕦𝕟𝕥𝕤 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕠𝕣𝕚𝕘𝕚𝕟 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕙𝕚𝕤𝕥𝕠𝕣𝕪 𝕠𝕗 𝔼𝕟𝕘𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕙 𝕨𝕠𝕣𝕕𝕤, 𝕡𝕙𝕣𝕒𝕤𝕖𝕤, 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕚𝕕𝕚𝕠𝕞𝕤. 𝕀𝕥 𝕚𝕤 𝕡𝕣𝕠𝕗𝕖𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕒𝕝 𝕖𝕟𝕠𝕦𝕘𝕙 𝕥𝕠 𝕤𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕤𝕗𝕪 𝕒𝕔𝕒𝕕𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔 𝕤𝕥𝕒𝕟𝕕𝕒𝕣𝕕𝕤, 𝕓𝕦𝕥 𝕒𝕔𝕔𝕖𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕓𝕝𝕖 𝕖𝕟𝕠𝕦𝕘𝕙 𝕥𝕠 𝕓𝕖 𝕦𝕤𝕖𝕕 𝕓𝕪 𝕒𝕟𝕪𝕠𝕟𝕖.
“𝓦𝓱𝓮𝓷 𝓘 𝓾𝓼𝓮 𝓪 𝔀𝓸𝓻𝓭,” 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓹𝓽𝔂 𝓓𝓾𝓶𝓹𝓽𝔂 𝓼𝓪𝓲𝓭 𝓲𝓷 𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻 𝓪 𝓼𝓬𝓸𝓻𝓷𝓯𝓾𝓵 𝓽𝓸𝓷𝓮, “𝓲𝓽 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽 𝔀𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓘 𝓬𝓱𝓸𝓸𝓼𝓮 𝓲𝓽 𝓽𝓸 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓷 — 𝓷𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻 𝓶𝓸𝓻𝓮 𝓷𝓸𝓻 𝓵𝓮𝓼𝓼.”
“𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓲𝓼,” 𝓼𝓪𝓲𝓭 𝓐𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓮, “𝔀𝓱𝓮𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻 𝔂𝓸𝓾 𝓬𝓪𝓷 𝓶𝓪𝓴𝓮 𝔀𝓸𝓻𝓭𝓼 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓷 𝓼𝓸 𝓶𝓪𝓷𝔂 𝓭𝓲𝓯𝓯𝓮𝓻𝓮𝓷𝓽 𝓽𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓰𝓼.”
“𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓲𝓼,” 𝓼𝓪𝓲𝓭 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓹𝓽𝔂 𝓓𝓾𝓶𝓹𝓽𝔂, “𝔀𝓱𝓲𝓬𝓱 𝓲𝓼 𝓽𝓸 𝓫𝓮 𝓶𝓪𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓻 – – 𝓽𝓱𝓪𝓽’𝓼 𝓪𝓵𝓵.”
ℙ𝔸ℝ𝕋 𝟚
I reject your statement of your opinion, quoted in part 1, as itself factually incorrect due to the imprecision of the words used. My edit of your sentence to remove the imprecision I object to.
𝓢: Deciding that *everything* involving an [overriding of another's will] somehow equals slavery is very strange and is factually incorrect.
𝓢: You've decided that you get to decide the definition of words now, but you'll have to excuse those who stick with the true meaning.
Okay...
SLAVE: 𝓞𝓷𝓮 𝔀𝓱𝓸 𝓲𝓼 𝓸𝔀𝓷𝓮𝓭 𝓪𝓼 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓽𝔂 𝓸𝓯 𝓼𝓸𝓶𝓮𝓸𝓷𝓮 𝓮𝓵𝓼𝓮, 𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓲𝓷 𝓲𝓷𝓿𝓸𝓵𝓾𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓻𝔂 𝓼𝓮𝓻𝓿𝓲𝓽𝓾𝓭𝓮.
𝓞𝓷𝓮 𝔀𝓱𝓸 𝓲𝓼 𝓼𝓾𝓫𝓼𝓮𝓻𝓿𝓲𝓮𝓷𝓽 𝓽𝓸 𝓸𝓻 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓸𝓵𝓵𝓮𝓭 𝓫𝔂 𝓪𝓷𝓸𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻.
𝓞𝓷𝓮 𝔀𝓱𝓸 𝓲𝓼 𝓼𝓾𝓫𝓳𝓮𝓬𝓽 𝓽𝓸 𝓸𝓻 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓸𝓵𝓵𝓮𝓭 𝓫𝔂 𝓪 𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓯𝓲𝓮𝓭 𝓲𝓷𝓯𝓵𝓾𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓮.
𝓯𝓻𝓸𝓶 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓐𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓷 𝓗𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓰𝓮® 𝓓𝓲𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓻𝔂 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓷𝓰𝓵𝓲𝓼𝓱 𝓛𝓪𝓷𝓰𝓾𝓪𝓰𝓮, 5𝓽𝓱 𝓔𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷. 𝓜𝓸𝓻𝓮 𝓪𝓽 𝓦𝓸𝓻𝓭𝓷𝓲𝓴
SLAVE: 𝖒𝖊𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖆𝖒-𝖜𝖊𝖇𝖘𝖙𝖊𝖗.𝖈𝖔𝖒 › 𝖉𝖎𝖈𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖆𝖗𝖞 › 𝖘𝖑𝖆𝖛𝖊
𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝖒𝖊𝖆𝖓𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝖔𝖋 𝕾𝕷𝕬𝖁𝕰 𝖎𝖘 𝖆 𝖕𝖊𝖗𝖘𝖔𝖓 𝖍𝖊𝖑𝖉 𝖎𝖓 𝖋𝖔𝖗𝖈𝖊𝖉 𝖘𝖊𝖗𝖛𝖎𝖙𝖚𝖉𝖊.
SLAVE: 𝒹𝒾𝒸𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓇𝓎.𝒸𝑜𝓂 › 𝒷𝓇𝑜𝓌𝓈𝑒 › 𝓈𝓁𝒶𝓋𝑒
𝒮𝓁𝒶𝓋𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝒻𝒾𝓃𝒾𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃, 𝒶 𝓅𝑒𝓇𝓈𝑜𝓃 𝓌𝒽𝑜 𝒾𝓈 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇𝓉𝓎 𝑜𝒻 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓌𝒽𝑜𝓁𝓁𝓎 𝓈𝓊𝒷𝒿𝑒𝒸𝓉 𝓉𝑜 𝒶𝓃𝑜𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝒻𝑜𝓇𝒸𝑒𝒹 𝓉𝑜 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓋𝒾𝒹𝑒 𝓊𝓃𝓅𝒶𝒾𝒹 𝓁𝒶𝒷𝑜𝓇. 𝒮𝑒𝑒 𝓂𝑜𝓇𝑒.
Do I need to hit this particular dead slave, er... horse any more?
My definition of 𝔸 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕚𝕤 𝕒 𝕙𝕦𝕞𝕒𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕖 𝕠𝕨𝕟𝕖𝕣'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝 comports itself with the above dictionhistory entries.
𝓢: Overriding another's will is the basis for plenty of wrong actions. Why do you believe it all equals "slavery"? Rape is an example.
Are you going to claim a woman being raped is not a sex slave for the duration of the rape? Was that woman's time and life not stolen for the duration of the rape?
𝓢: Robbery is another.
Are you going to claim a human spending time earning what was taken wasn't the taking of that time and energy spent earning the property taken? Are you going to claim that the robbery didn't change the time working into enslavement for the benefit of the enslaving robber against the victim's will, albeit unknowingly by the victim at the time?
𝓢: I have the *ability* to breathe. Rights are a human social construct.
We agree that "rights" are a human social construct.
What was the purpose of the construction of the concept of rights. (Rhetorical because you did approach this. Your quote is in part 3.)
𝓓: Do you have a right to fend off someone attempting to suffocate you?
𝓢: I have both the ability and the right, in the USA.
𝓓: If I were to attempt to suffocate you, do you have a right to fend me off?
𝓢: I have both the ability and the right, in the USA.
𝓢: Rights are assigned by man. Period.
Would you have a right to fend off someone attempting to suffocate you if you were not in the USA?
In other words:
Would you have a right to fend off someone attempting to suffocate you if a right to life was not assigned to you?
𝓢: Since we have not talked about my morals, and have only talked about the truth of the world, it is interesting that you believe you can judge my morals. But since I believe your moral compass to be lacking, I suppose it is only fair for you to make assumptions about me.
I would love to find out my assumption regarding your morality is wrong.
𝓢: I do not require any type of [...] philosophical guidelines to tell right from wrong. It's really not that hard.
Regardless, you learned right from wrong and internalized your experiential guidelines. You and I both learned those experiential guidelines growing up.
Even though most have no clue about experiential guidelines and never question what they are, all have them.
For example, a child observes mom and / or dad shoplifting. Does this not indicate to the child that stealing is not wrong?
How did most parents learn to parent? Were they not taught parenting and parenting guidelines by how their parents parented them? What are their cognitions regarding right from wrong parenting... If any?
There appears to me, a difference between you and I. I examined my "right from wrong" dogma/ guidelines by the light of "right from wrong" philosophical guidelines. Bradshaw on the Family Pub. 1988 in the case of my fup and wrong family values.
What has not been addressed is the philosophical guidelines of "right from wrong" that I use.
𝓢: Know what else is wrong? Wanting to bring about a destructive, violent society, knowing full well that many will die and suffer, just so you can espouse a ridiculous philosophical-turned-political idea.
Since we are opining about each others wrongs, know what else is wrong? Ignoring that society is already destructive, violent, and makes many die and suffer.
You are blind to this truth. I understand that you, like the majority, have no clue about that particular, provable. reality. I'll save you some typing: I know you reject that claim.
ℙ𝔸ℝ𝕋 𝟛
𝓓: The tooth fairy is a human mental construct; a human concept; 𝓢: "all invented by the minds of humans."
So is Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, any corporate person... And government.
𝓢: All of it only exists in the minds of men. Money, certificates, degrees, ranks, titles, religion, philosophy, laws, etc etc etc. are all only possible because humans have a unique ability to form complex ideas, agree to them, and share them within their society and across societies. Humans are able to exist ONLY BECAUSE we are able to all agree to a certain imaginary "thing".
I labelled a question in part 1 rhetorical because you wrote this. I have some nits to pick with what you listed. Some I wish to delve into, others are not important enough for me to examine.
I am taking this as your admission that the purpose of these imaginary things is to avoid a destructive, violent society, with many dying and suffering. Your silence on this will suffice as agreement to my assumption and save you some typing.
𝓢: For example, the entire world runs on money, but money doesn't actually exist.
Per G. Edward Griffin in THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND Pub. 1994, Money is a measure and store of value.
Rephrasing your opinion / claim to match my observation of the world: The entire world runs on "a measure and store of value". That is all one needs to know to examine ANY thing having to do with "money".
To split hairs, Federal Reserve Notes are NOT money. They are "currency" that must be accepted as payment of a debt. They are LEGAL TENDER, and as is printed on each and every FRN, "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE".
Federal Reserve NOTEs are Federal Reserve IOU's, just like a mortgage or a installment payment plan used in purchasing a car. In fact, I read on one of the twelve Federal Reserve banks' website, the admission that FRN's are "monetized debt".
𝓢: We all just agree that this substance (gold, silver, pears, rice, cookies, brandy, etc) is worth this much, and this work is worth this much, and employees should be paid this way, while CEOs should be paid this way, etc etc etc etc.
You and I ARE NOT WE. You, I, your sister ARE NOT WE.
I object to your reification of the term "WE", implying that the many, the collective, are a single entity and that the many, the collective, have given you authority to speak for each and every individual included, corralled, or fenced in by the term "WE".
𝓢: Now, even though money is imaginary, what do you think would happen if all money in the world disappeared?
Apparently you don't understand what money is. Nor its types.
𝟣. 𝒞𝑜𝓂𝓂𝑜𝒹𝒾𝓉𝓎 𝓂𝑜𝓃𝑒𝓎
𝟤. 𝑅𝑒𝒸𝑒𝒾𝓅𝓉 𝓂𝑜𝓃𝑒𝓎
𝟥. 𝐹𝒾𝒶𝓉 𝓂𝑜𝓃𝑒𝓎
𝟦. 𝐹𝓇𝒶𝒸𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓁 𝓂𝑜𝓃𝑒𝓎
𝓢: Society would collapse.
That's your opinion.
𝓢: The same thing would happen if you removed the ability to recognize education with a degree, or training with a certificate.
That's your opinion.
I will admit that determining who has knowledge would be "slightly" harder to discern.
My certification/diploma from my military training in electronics is not what got me into several of the jobs I've had over the years. Quick quizzes on technical knowledge is what did. In fact, a tech quiz on "ladder diagrams", something that I had never seen prior to this quiz, is what helped me get the position. I figured it out on the fly, thus proving I could read the diagram even as I learned to read the diagram, understood its control of its machine, and found the problems as quizzed on the machine. I have very good "figure it out" ability. I know this because I know myself, and because my peers observed me using my figure it out ability and commented on the same.
It's not that hard to determine who's blowing smoke up your ass when you know the information you are quizzing another about.
Back to your opinion that society is going to collapse without certifications and degrees... I'll leave you to look up "Galloping Gertie", designed by credentialed engineers. I'll leave you to look up Apollo 13, designed and built by credentialed engineers. (Don't look at what the credentialed engineer that designed the New York trade center towers to withstand a Boeing 707 impact said about the towers collapsing.)
𝓢: Same thing if you removed government.
I know, without any doubt, that you and I do NOT agree on what the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of "government" is. I know, without any doubt, that you will reject both of my definitions of what government actually is.
𝓢: What is your point? Humans kill other humans all the time. Yes, I absolutely completely 100% reject the idea of "natural rights". They don't exist.
WAIT!
Gimme a moment while I scroll up.
...
I'm back.
𝓓: Do you have a right to life?
𝓢: Depends on where you live.
𝓓: Do you have a right to fend off someone attempting to suffocate you?
𝓢: I have both the ability and the right, in the USA.
𝓓: Do you have a right to protect your life?
𝓢: Depends on where you live.
What's the difference between human rights and natural rights?
Are you going to claim neither exists?
𝓢: I have the ability to hold my opinions. In this country, I also have the right to say them out loud.
How can you have a right to anything if rights don't exist.
𝓢: I don't conflate rights with ability, as you appear to do.
I don't accept "might makes right" which you have been not just accepting, but arguing for...
"Might makes right" is exactly what has lead to the destructive, violent society, with many dying and suffering that provably currently exists.
𝓢: It is very telling that many of the"rights" we take for granted in this country would equal imprisonment or death in another.
What, exactly, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics, and elements of these various rights?
What, specifically, is common with all these various rights?
Commonality of various rights? The right to not be harmed by another human?
https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid0AhxCwN1hhYcvKWS2eMyrH82rVBAKJysipZHj8CE7kCGyYGhaAhLEB7dX7SrzEkRCl?comment_id=944471259869080&reply_comment_id=1947750595574389
-
ℙ𝔸ℝ𝕋 𝟜
Parts 1-3 are under the other OP thread.
𝓢: the definition [of anarchy] is pretty clear. Though I realize that libertarians love to change the definition of words to fit their agenda.
𝓢: I can assure you that the word anarchy certainly doesn't mean order.
What, specifically, do YOU mean when you use the word "anarchy"?
𝓢: I'm not the one wishing harm on others. That is your ideology, not mine.
I share the same ideology as the person your quote was a reply to. So such a reply to him is the same as if you had said that to me.
Please present your evidence and your reasoning that he and I "wish" to harm others.
𝓢: Like it or not, you will never have everyone agree with your ideas of morality. Never.
Friendly reminder, the three of us already agree on these ideas of morality.
If you were motivated to compare your sister's friend list for overlap of my friend list, you would find many more folks who agree with these ideas of morality.
In the dialog I'm mining for your... ah... opinions, I do not see the specific traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of these morality ideas. If you do not know or understand this idea of morality, then you have no ground to stand on to criticize this specific morality idea.
I doubt that you can succinctly state these morality ideas.
𝓢: Are you going to force 8 billion people to believe the way you believe?
Are we forcing you to believe the way we believe?
You fail being moral simply because, from other discussion with you, you support the "might makes right" bullshit. And in the quoted words, your first thought is to turn to using force as a way to achieve change.
𝓢: How are you going to do that?
By simply being observed being more moral than you. Like with this dialog for example.
𝓢: No matter what you do, no matter how vehemently you believe what you believe, everyone isn't going to suddenly promise real hard to be good and adopt your beliefs.
Conflate much? Here's your words with the conflation removed:
𝓢: No matter what you do, no matter how vehemently you believe what you believe, everyone isn't going to suddenly [...] adopt your beliefs.
They don't have to. All they have to know is actions have consequences. Attempt to harm me or mine, I have the right to return escalating harm and violence sufficient to make your attack more costly than you wish to pay.
Contrary to your incorrect, publicly stated opinion of myself and others wishing to harm others, we do NOT want to harm others. We wish to be left alone by others who will initiate harm against us.
𝓢: And if you take away a government, you are asking for civil war and foreign invasion.
That's your opinion.
Repeating what I have posted: I know, without any doubt, that you and I do NOT agree on what the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of "government" is. I know, without any doubt, that you will reject both of my definitions of what government actually is.
Also, the "government" is already executing a civil war against "us". Save your typing. I already know you reject that claim. I also know you are confused regarding who is the attacker and who is the defender.
𝓢: I hate the fact that war exists, but it does exist. It will likely always exist.
What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of war?
𝓢: This isn't Nazi Germany, there are not a lot of "horrible things" that can be done within the law.
Only ❶ premeditated murder, ❷ defrauding trillions from people, ❸ making humans homeless, ❹ taking property without court order, ❺ coercion-extortion, ❻ doing medical experiments on humans without their consent, ❼ and enslavement.
Seven things. Yeah. That's not a lot. /sarcasm.
I will show proof in a separate posts.
ℙ𝔸ℝ𝕋 𝟝
𝓢: Haven't you noticed that police involved in police brutality cases have acted outside the law?
<sarcasm>
Haven't you noticed that police investigate themselves and often find they did nothing wrong.
</sarcasm>
Many cops are often captured on camera doing illegal actions only to get a light slap on the wrist, if anything at all.
I am going to assume that searching for police brutality videos and observing them is not something you have ever done.
https://search.brave.com/videos?q=police%20brutality%20videos&source=web
Understandable because it rattles the brainwashing that police are for your protection. ❽ They're not.
𝓢: Actually, any horrible thing you can think of can be done with or without the law, only without the law, you can't do a damn thing about it.
Clarification please. Are you claiming that without the law, one 𝓬𝓪𝓷'𝓽 𝓭𝓸 𝓪 𝓭𝓪𝓶𝓷 𝓽𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓪𝓫𝓸𝓾𝓽 an attacker that is attacking?
𝓢: I mean look, anarchists dehumanize police officers, government officials, even county pee-ons all the time.
Wrong.
As a anarchist, voluntaryist, and YDOMist, I do not "dehumanize" the ruling class. They do that all by themselves because they treat the ruled slave class like slaves and/or inhumanely.
𝓢: The realities of police work is easy to ignore when you're not in it all the time, but it's scary and it's real.
Yeah... About those realities. I'm quoting Dr. Robert Higgs:
𝒯𝒽𝑒 𝓌𝒽𝑜𝓁𝑒 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹 𝒞𝑜𝓅 / 𝐵𝒶𝒹 𝒞𝑜𝓅 𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝒸𝒶𝓃 𝒷𝑒 𝒹𝒾𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓈𝑒𝒹 𝑜𝒻 𝓂𝓊𝒸𝒽 𝓂𝑜𝓇𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝒸𝒾𝓈𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁𝓎. 𝒲𝑒 𝓃𝑒𝑒𝒹 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝑒𝓃𝓊𝓂𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓉𝑒 𝓌𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓅𝑜𝓇𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝑜𝒻 𝒸𝑜𝓅𝓈 𝒶𝓅𝓅𝑒𝒶𝓇𝓈 𝓉𝑜 𝒷𝑒 𝑔𝑜𝑜𝒹 𝑜𝓇 𝓁𝒾𝓈𝓉𝑒𝓃 𝓉𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝓂𝑒𝑜𝓃𝑒'𝓈 𝒶𝓃𝑒𝒸𝒹𝑜𝓉𝑒 𝒶𝒷𝑜𝓊𝓉 𝒽𝒾𝓈 𝓊𝓃𝒸𝓁𝑒 𝒞𝒽𝒶𝓇𝓁𝒾𝑒, 𝒶𝓃 𝒶𝓁𝓁𝑒𝑔𝑒𝒹𝓁𝓎 𝑔𝑜𝑜𝒹 𝒸𝑜𝓅.
𝒲𝑒 𝓃𝑒𝑒𝒹 𝑜𝓃𝓁𝓎 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝒾𝒹𝑒𝓇 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒻𝑜𝓁𝓁𝑜𝓌𝒾𝓃𝑔:
𝒜 𝒸𝑜𝓅'𝓈 𝒿𝑜𝒷 𝒾𝓈 𝓉𝑜 𝑒𝓃𝒻𝑜𝓇𝒸𝑒 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓁𝒶𝓌𝓈, 𝒶𝓁𝓁 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂;
𝑀𝒶𝓃𝓎 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓁𝒶𝓌𝓈 𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝓂𝒶𝓃𝒾𝒻𝑒𝓈𝓉𝓁𝓎 𝓊𝓃𝒿𝓊𝓈𝓉, 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓈𝑜𝓂𝑒 𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓃 𝒸𝓇𝓊𝑒𝓁 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓌𝒾𝒸𝓀𝑒𝒹;
𝒯𝒽𝑒𝓇𝑒𝒻𝑜𝓇𝑒 𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓎 𝒸𝑜𝓅 𝒽𝒶𝓈 𝓉𝑜 𝒶𝑔𝓇𝑒𝑒 𝓉𝑜 𝒶𝒸𝓉 𝒶𝓈 𝒶𝓃 𝑒𝓃𝒻𝑜𝓇𝒸𝑒𝓇 𝒻𝑜𝓇 𝓁𝒶𝓌𝓈 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝓂𝒶𝓃𝒾𝒻𝑒𝓈𝓉𝓁𝓎 𝓊𝓃𝒿𝓊𝓈𝓉 𝑜𝓇 𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓃 𝒸𝓇𝓊𝑒𝓁 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓌𝒾𝒸𝓀𝑒𝒹.
𝒯𝒽𝑒𝓇𝑒 𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝓃𝑜 𝑔𝑜𝑜𝒹 𝒸𝑜𝓅𝓈.
Police are not for your protection. ❽
𝓢: There are tons of solutions to problems that don't involve tearing down a society that took hundreds of years to build.
I'm sure that non-sequitur assumption is your opinion.
𝓢: It flagged on screen that the phone was calling emergency services[...]
Fast forward ten to fifteen minutes and we get a knock on the door[...]
when I answer the door. He sees the look on my face and says "I'm sorry if I alarmed you[...]
Dial 911 and Die by Richard W. Stevens. Pub. 1999. I have not read this book. I am aware of the results found. The title says it all.
I will identify the court case this quote was excerpted from when I compose and post my ❽ post.
𝓦𝓪𝓻𝓻𝓮𝓷'𝓼 𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵 𝔀𝓪𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓭 𝓪𝓽 𝓜𝓮𝓽𝓻𝓸𝓹𝓸𝓵𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓷 𝓟𝓸𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓓𝓮𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓽𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽 𝓗𝓮𝓪𝓭𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓼 𝓪𝓽 6:23 𝓪. 𝓶., 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔀𝓪𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓸𝓻𝓭𝓮𝓭 𝓪𝓼 𝓪 𝓫𝓾𝓻𝓰𝓵𝓪𝓻𝔂 𝓲𝓷 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓰𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓼. 𝓐𝓽 6:26 𝓪. 𝓶., 𝓪 𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵 𝔀𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓲𝓼𝓹𝓪𝓽𝓬𝓱𝓮𝓭 𝓽𝓸 𝓸𝓯𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓮𝓻𝓼 𝓸𝓷 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓮𝓮𝓽 𝓪𝓼 𝓪 "𝓒𝓸𝓭𝓮 2" 𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓰𝓷𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽, 𝓪𝓵𝓽𝓱𝓸𝓾𝓰𝓱 𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝓼 𝓸𝓯 𝓪 𝓬𝓻𝓲𝓶𝓮 𝓲𝓷 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓰𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓼 𝓼𝓱𝓸𝓾𝓵𝓭 𝓫𝓮 𝓰𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓷 𝓹𝓻𝓲𝓸𝓻𝓲𝓽𝔂 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓲𝓰𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓪𝓼 "𝓒𝓸𝓭𝓮 1." 𝓕𝓸𝓾𝓻 𝓹𝓸𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓬𝓻𝓾𝓲𝓼𝓮𝓻𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓸𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓭 𝓽𝓸 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓫𝓻𝓸𝓪𝓭𝓬𝓪𝓼𝓽; 𝓽𝓱𝓻𝓮𝓮 𝓽𝓸 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓛𝓪𝓶𝓸𝓷𝓽 𝓢𝓽𝓻𝓮𝓮𝓽 𝓪𝓭𝓭𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓼 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓸𝓷𝓮 𝓽𝓸 𝓪𝓷𝓸𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻 𝓪𝓭𝓭𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓼 𝓽𝓸 𝓲𝓷𝓿𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓽𝓮 𝓪 𝓹𝓸𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓫𝓵𝓮 𝓼𝓾𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓽.
𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝔀𝓱𝓲𝓵𝓮, 𝓦𝓪𝓻𝓻𝓮𝓷 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓣𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓪𝓯𝓮𝓻𝓻𝓸 𝓬𝓻𝓪𝔀𝓵𝓮𝓭 𝓯𝓻𝓸𝓶 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓲𝓻 𝔀𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓸𝔀 𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓪𝓷 𝓪𝓭𝓳𝓸𝓲𝓷𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓻𝓸𝓸𝓯 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔀𝓪𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓯𝓸𝓻 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓹𝓸𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓽𝓸 𝓪𝓻𝓻𝓲𝓿𝓮. 𝓦𝓱𝓲𝓵𝓮 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮, 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝔂 𝓼𝓪𝔀 𝓸𝓷𝓮 𝓹𝓸𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓮𝓶𝓪𝓷 𝓭𝓻𝓲𝓿𝓮 𝓽𝓱𝓻𝓸𝓾𝓰𝓱 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓪𝓵𝓵𝓮𝔂 𝓫𝓮𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓭 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓲𝓻 𝓱𝓸𝓾𝓼𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓬𝓮𝓮𝓭 𝓽𝓸 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓯𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓽 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓮 𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱𝓸𝓾𝓽 𝓼𝓽𝓸𝓹𝓹𝓲𝓷𝓰, 𝓵𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓸𝓾𝓽 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝔀𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓸𝔀, 𝓸𝓻 𝓰𝓮𝓽𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓸𝓾𝓽 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓬𝓪𝓻 𝓽𝓸 𝓬𝓱𝓮𝓬𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓫𝓪𝓬𝓴 𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓬𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓱𝓸𝓾𝓼𝓮. 𝓐 𝓼𝓮𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓭 𝓸𝓯𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓮𝓻 𝓪𝓹𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓵𝔂 𝓴𝓷𝓸𝓬𝓴𝓮𝓭 𝓸𝓷 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓭𝓸𝓸𝓻 𝓲𝓷 𝓯𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓽 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓮, 𝓫𝓾𝓽 𝓵𝓮𝓯𝓽 𝔀𝓱𝓮𝓷 𝓱𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓭 𝓷𝓸 𝓪𝓷𝓼𝔀𝓮𝓻. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓽𝓱𝓻𝓮𝓮 𝓸𝓯𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓮𝓻𝓼 𝓭𝓮𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓼𝓬𝓮𝓷𝓮 𝓪𝓽 6:33 𝓪. 𝓶., 𝓯𝓲𝓿𝓮 𝓶𝓲𝓷𝓾𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓪𝓯𝓽𝓮𝓻 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝔂 𝓪𝓻𝓻𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓭.
You described some shitty police protective work. What if that look on your face was because you actually had an intruder that had J and yourself in a threatening situation... Or more transpired than the look on your face to alleviate what should have been the cop's concern? <shrug> No matter.
-
Not yet posted ❶ - ❽
❶ premeditated murder
Any ‘government’ that has capital punishment laws on its books, premeditates murder. Any ‘government’ that actually executes its prisoners IS a murderer. And since it doesn’t happen unless the law is on the books, ‘governments’ executing prisoners are committing premeditated murder.
‘Government’ murder is not limited to executing prisoners.
Do a Google search for “Ruby Ridge” (189,000 hits) and you will find articles such as the one found on the web site of the Cato Institute from which the following excerpt was taken:
During the night, FBI snipers took positions around the Weaver cabin. There is no dispute about the fact that the snipers were given illegal "shoot to kill" orders. Under the law, police agents can use deadly force to defend themselves and others from imminent attack, but these snipers were instructed to shoot any adult who was armed and outside the cabin, regardless of whether the adult posed a threat or not. The next morning, an FBI agent shot and wounded Randy Weaver. A few moments later, the same agent shot Weaver's wife in the head as she was standing in the doorway of her home holding a baby in her arms. The FBI snipers had not yet announced their presence and had not given the Weavers an opportunity to peacefully surrender.
By Timothy Lynch, published in National Review Online, Aug. 21, 2002.
A Google search of “Waco: The Rules of Engagement” (24,400 hits) will lead you to more ‘government’ murder.
The mythos of ‘government’ would have you ignore the simple fact that our ‘government’ “is” a murderer.
War is when governments commit to murdering those not on their side.
❷ defrauding trillions from people
Dear IRS,
SCOTUS has said:
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." GOULD v. GOULD, 245 U.S. 151 (1917).
SCOTUS has said:
... [T]he well-settled rule ... the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid... SPRECKELS SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MCCLAIN, 192 U.S. 397 (1904)
SCOTUS has said:
If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627 (1886)
What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?
I personally know, from weeks, nay, from months of reading federal income tax law, that there is NO tax imposed upon a private citizen's domestically earned compensation for labor. Send that 204 word letter and apprise me of the statute they respond with.
Also...
While you read the next quote, ask yourself if it is possible that you have voluntarily agreed to pay taxes you don't owe.
§3402. Income tax collected at source
(p) Voluntary withholding agreements
(3) Authority for other voluntary withholding
The Secretary is authorized by regulations to provide for withholding—
(A) from remuneration for services performed by an employee for the employee's employer which (without regard to this paragraph) does not constitute wages, and
(B) from any other type of payment with respect to which the Secretary finds that withholding would be appropriate under the provisions of this chapter,
if the employer and employee, or the person making and the person receiving such other type of payment, agree to such withholding. Such agreement shall be in such form and manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe. For purposes of this chapter (and so much of subtitle F as relates to this chapter), remuneration or other payments with respect to which such agreement is made shall be treated as if they were wages paid by an employer to an employee to the extent that such remuneration is paid or other payments are made during the period for which the agreement is in effect.
Doesn't that subsection allow you to voluntarily allow withholding on non-taxable revenue? Doesn't that subsection allow you to voluntarily donate money to the IRS that is not payment of a tax?
Doesn't that subsection show the following in an entirely different light?
26 CFR 601.602
Subpart F_Rules, Regulations, and Forms
Sec. 601.602 Tax forms and instructions.
(a) Tax return forms and instructions.
The tax system is based on voluntary compliance, and the taxpayers complete and return the forms with payment of any tax owed.
❸ making humans homeless
I personally know a family that had their home taken because of getting behind on the property taxes.
❹ taking property without court order
Incredible as it sounds, civil asset forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property without charging anyone with a crime. Police can seize property first and hold it pending trial, which could be four to six years later. The government’s case for forfeiture can be based on allegations of illegal activity of someone other than the property owner. At trial the owner has to prove innocence – the government does not have to prove the property owner was guilty. Many forfeiture victims don’t have enough assets left after the seizure to hire counsel, yet the procedures are too complicated for property owners to successfully defend themselves.
Forfeiture Endangers American Rights Foundation.org
❺ coercion-extortion
If you do not submit to the rules the ruling class has demanded you obey, people with guns will be sent to make you comply. If you do not comply you will be issued a citation. If you do not appear in court, you will be found guilty as charged. If the charge is not simple financial extortion, if you refuse to appear in court, people with guns will use force to drag you kicking and screaming, into the court. The goons will ramp up their force against you until you comply or are dead.
❻ doing medical experiments on humans without their consent
Take the MRNA shot made available under an emergency use authorization... Or else.
Note to self: Edit to update with the various bits of evidence.
❼ and enslavement
𝔸 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕚𝕤 𝕒 𝕙𝕦𝕞𝕒𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕖 𝕠𝕨𝕟𝕖𝕣'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝.
Malum Prohibitum & Mala Prohibita are the ruling class rules overriding the slaves' free will.
❽ Police are not for your protection.
No Duty To Protect
The dictionary definition claims that the purpose of the police is crime prevention, and to maintain peace, safety, and order. This dictionary definition does not account for what the law and the courts have to say on this matter.
South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 396 (1855)
⚠ Consequently we are of opinion that the declaration sets forth no sufficient cause of action.⛔
In common speech no sufficient cause of action means the suit for damages caused by the sheriff failing to protect the plaintiff is dismissed for lack of standing.
The court listed the Sheriff's legal duties in the full text. The Plaintiff did not have standing to sue the Sheriff because the Sheriff did not have a legal duty to protect the Plaintiff.
Warren v. District of Columbia 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
⚠ The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection.⛔
"The well-established rule"... Well, since 1855 that is.
DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
⚠ A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.⛔
CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES 545 U.S.748 (2005)
⚠ We decide in this case whether an individual who has obtained a state-law restraining order has a constitutionally protected property interest in having the police enforce the restraining order when they have probable cause to believe it has been violated.
[...]
We conclude, therefore, that respondent did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.⛔
The court ruled that Jessica Gonzales did not have a right to expect police protection for herself or her three daughters.
Statutory Law
California, Illinois, and New Jersey tell the same truth in no uncertain terms.
Stated in California Code 845:
⚠ Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.⛔
Stated in 745 Illinois Compiled Statute 10/4-102:
⚠ Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, failure to detect or solve crimes, and failure to identify or apprehend criminals. ⛔
Stated in New Jersey Revised Statute 59:5-4:
⚠ Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.⛔
Do you still believe that the police force exists to protect you?
-
I don't have time to give a reply right now, but this reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend. I'll share one sentence. "Ah yes, anarchists, the people who get mad at police shooting people because they wanted to shoot them themselves". Seriously, you are all the most ammosexual, bloodthirsty group of people I've ever seen. Maybe you should think on that.
I appreciate and am thankful that you are giving replies when you can.
And thank you for the courtesy heads up.
I'll not challenge after the "but" 'till later.
-
EW false equivalence. Animals exist in a natural state without cages. Humans, however, do not form social groups without some type of hierarchy. Ever. Even small tribal groups have a leader. Children naturally pick a leader. There have been many social experiments which show this, but really it just takes a little education and life experience to know it.
[Sister] hot take: no one is trying to track you. 🤷🏼♀️
I've taken self defense. J has taken self defense. I'm still not naive enough to believe that I or my daughter could take on most situations. You need to study more actual true crime cases; the element of surprise is always the advantage of the aggressor. But the most important fact is that all of your daughters are far more likely to be hurt or killed by a domestic partner than by some random person on the street. Women are uniquely at risk in this way. One of the most important things a woman can have is a way to discreetly call for help. I wish I would have had a button on my phone that could have helped me years ago with that situation I told you about in Sedona. As it was, a friend showed up at my house and called the police when he realized what was going on.
Plus the solution that every anarchist seems to spout is to just shoot whoever commits a crime against you; seriously? You just want everyone to just start shooting each other? No accountability, just trust that they had a good reason? Insanity. Plus, do you really think that everyone wants to kill other people? Do you realize how much guilt I'd have if I actually ended up shooting Reid and he died? I would never be the same. Having the ability to bring in a third party with authority allowed that situation to end peacefully. And that's only one of millions of the same scenario that plays over and over around the world.
I already asked you about your government comment. I personally believe that the constitution is something of a masterpiece on the world stage and don't agree with your take. But, I'm curious to know, if you believed that the constitution was enacted the way you believe it "should" have been, would you then somehow be ok with having a government?
Dale Eastman holy crap, you must be retired or something. I skimmed most of what you wrote and, as expected, it's a bunch of false nonsense, an effed-up moral compass, delusional thinking, confirmation bias, an overactive imagination, and an overdose of the Dunning-Kruger effect. But I'm not going to read and respond to all of that. I hate wasting my time.
I will respond to one thing you said, though, because it shows pretty clearly how your brain works.
"You described some shitty police protective work..." See, you took a few sentences, didn't ask for any clarification on any points, and drew a false conclusion that fulfilled your bias. I believe that this is what you do with pretty much everyone and everything.
The police officer did a great job. Believe it or not, my expression changed when I realized why he was there. I was laughing and relieved that no one was hurt or dead. He saw we were fine and he left. I bet if he would have insisted on coming inside, you would have something negative to say about that. In fact, I bet there is absolutely nothing he could have done to make you happy with the fact that he exists at all.
One more thing: what do you think Putin would do if we suddenly had no government? What do you think the response would be from Al-Qaeda? What do you think Li Zuocheng and Wei Fenghe would think? You think they would just leave us alone out of the goodness of their hearts? Yeah. Ok.
-
btw we sent out his computer to the address you gave and hopefully you'll be able to get it back soon.
Yes, thank you. Hubby has been in touch with the recipient and hopefully everything goes smoothly and he'll have it soon.
And in response to self defense...
Yes women are at a disadvantage, but that still doesn't change the fact that you are always the only one responsible for your own defense. Unless you want to hire security personnel to shadow you.
And I don't go straight to lethal defense, I apply as much force as necessary to stop the aggression.
Yes, the element of surprise is great to have. I have used it and put the guy on the floor, then was able to get away.
Sometimes it may not be enough.
Having a tool that gives you an edge, especially as a women, is only common sense to me.
And the vast majority of incidence of using a gun to stop an assault ends with no shots fired. In other words, just the sight of the gun stopped the attack.
Waiting for someone to help you is helplessness and may leave you harmed, raped or killed. I've read many lawsuits against the state where such has happened. The woman called the cops, but they never came (or they came but never engaged). When sued after such events, the courts have ruled, with unfailing consistency, in favor of the state and that the cops are NOT responsible for your safety or defense and it is your responsibility.
and to your question about if I would "support the Constitution" if it had been instituted in a different way, no. Because it doesn't matter how it was created, but what it says it creates.
A centralized authority.
"you are the only one responsible for your safety". You say that over and over again, like it is profound, but it doesn't really mean anything. Of course you are the only one who is ultimately responsible for your own safety, but that doesn't negate the fact that other people do want to help people in distress. Including, wait for it... Police officers.
Don't succumb to the 100% or 0% fallacy. The police help astronomically more than they hurt, and that 1% of 1% that you're mad about is something we are all mad about. You have a skewed view of people in police work and obviously are part of the ACAB crowd. I have marched against police violence with plenty of ACAB people and understand the anger, especially with the BLM protests happening. Our police department in Flagstaff marched with us, BTW, until they were threatened over and over by the ACAB crowd. You understand that? The POLICE were marching against POLICE BRUTALITY until ACAB started throwing things at them, screaming at them, broke a window at the police station, etc. It got really disgusting. Stop dehumanizing police officers and think about what can be done to help reduce the number of unnecessary shootings. The thing, too, that you don't seem to think about is that police officers get a heck of a lot more firearm, least-force-necessary, de-escalation training than any citizen, and they still make mistakes. Imagine a bunch of scared, untrained, armed people making unchecked decisions 24/7 with no regulation and no oversight. What a nightmare.
𝓢: I will respond to one thing you said, though, because it shows pretty clearly how your brain works.
And I will respond to your response, "𝓫𝓮𝓬𝓪𝓾𝓼𝓮 𝓲𝓽 𝓼𝓱𝓸𝔀𝓼 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓽𝓽𝔂 𝓬𝓵𝓮𝓪𝓻𝓵𝔂 𝓱𝓸𝔀 𝔂𝓸𝓾𝓻 𝓫𝓻𝓪𝓲𝓷 𝔀𝓸𝓻𝓴𝓼."
You prefer to beat the stuffing out of a pair of bib overalls and not discussing my challenges to YOUR beliefs.
𝓢: 𝓘 𝓼𝓴𝓲𝓶𝓶𝓮𝓭 𝓶𝓸𝓼𝓽 𝓸𝓯 𝔀𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝔂𝓸𝓾 𝔀𝓻𝓸𝓽𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭, 𝓪𝓼 𝓮𝔁𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓽𝓮𝓭, 𝓲𝓽'𝓼 𝓪 𝓫𝓾𝓷𝓬𝓱 𝓸𝓯 𝓯𝓪𝓵𝓼𝓮 𝓷𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓼𝓮, 𝓪𝓷 𝓮𝓯𝓯𝓮𝓭-𝓾𝓹 𝓶𝓸𝓻𝓪𝓵 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓹𝓪𝓼𝓼, 𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓵 𝓽𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓴𝓲𝓷𝓰, 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓯𝓲𝓻𝓶𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓫𝓲𝓪𝓼, 𝓪𝓷 𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓮 𝓲𝓶𝓪𝓰𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷, 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓪𝓷 𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓭𝓸𝓼𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓓𝓾𝓷𝓷𝓲𝓷𝓰-𝓚𝓻𝓾𝓰𝓮𝓻 𝓮𝓯𝓯𝓮𝓬𝓽. 𝓑𝓾𝓽 𝓘'𝓶 𝓷𝓸𝓽 𝓰𝓸𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓽𝓸 𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓭 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓸𝓷𝓭 𝓽𝓸 𝓪𝓵𝓵 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝓱𝓪𝓽.
Lemme introduce you to my six friends; What, When, Where, Who, How, and Why.
Now I will translate what you wrote:
𝓢: [I ignored] 𝔀𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝔂𝓸𝓾 𝔀𝓻𝓸𝓽𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭, 𝓪𝓼 𝓮𝔁𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓽𝓮𝓭, 𝓲𝓽'𝓼 𝓪 𝓫𝓾𝓷𝓬𝓱 𝓸𝓯 𝓯𝓪𝓵𝓼𝓮 𝓷𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓼𝓮, 𝓪𝓷 𝓮𝓯𝓯𝓮𝓭-𝓾𝓹 𝓶𝓸𝓻𝓪𝓵 𝓬𝓸𝓶𝓹𝓪𝓼𝓼, 𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓵 𝓽𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓴𝓲𝓷𝓰, 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓯𝓲𝓻𝓶𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓫𝓲𝓪𝓼, 𝓪𝓷 𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓮 𝓲𝓶𝓪𝓰𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷, 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓪𝓷 𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓭𝓸𝓼𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓓𝓾𝓷𝓷𝓲𝓷𝓰-𝓚𝓻𝓾𝓰𝓮𝓻 𝓮𝓯𝓯𝓮𝓬𝓽, therefor I don't have to address the specific things you wrote about.
Nescience is not knowing. Ignorance is choosing to not know.
Please explain, exactly, how these words are "𝓪 𝓫𝓾𝓷𝓬𝓱 𝓸𝓯 𝓯𝓪𝓵𝓼𝓮 𝓷𝓸𝓷𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓼𝓮"?
𝓢: You've decided that you get to decide the definition of words now, but you'll have to excuse those who stick with the true meaning.
𝓓: For a smart person, such as you have actually proven several times over, with double diplomas to boot, I am simply aghast at your presentment of your lack of knowledge of communication. A higher level educated person such as your self must surely be aware of what is referred to as "Voltaire's Admonition." Paraphrased as: If you wish to communicate, first define your terms.
𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓶-𝔀𝓮𝓫𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓻.𝓬𝓸𝓶 › 𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓻𝔂 › 𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓻𝔂
𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓸𝓯 𝓓𝓘𝓒𝓣𝓘𝓞𝓝𝓐𝓡𝓨 𝓲𝓼 𝓪 𝓻𝓮𝓯𝓮𝓻𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓮 𝓼𝓸𝓾𝓻𝓬𝓮 𝓲𝓷 𝓹𝓻𝓲𝓷𝓽 𝓸𝓻 𝓮𝓵𝓮𝓬𝓽𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓲𝓬 𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓶 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓲𝓷𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝔀𝓸𝓻𝓭𝓼 𝓾𝓼𝓾𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓪𝓵𝓹𝓱𝓪𝓫𝓮𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓪𝓻𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓰𝓮𝓭 𝓪𝓵𝓸𝓷𝓰 𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱 𝓲𝓷𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓶𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓪𝓫𝓸𝓾𝓽 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓲𝓻 𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓶𝓼, 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓾𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓼, 𝓯𝓾𝓷𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓼, 𝔼𝕥𝕪𝕞𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕚𝕖𝕤, 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓲𝓷𝓰𝓼, 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓼𝔂𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓬 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓲𝓭𝓲𝓸𝓶𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓬 𝓾𝓼𝓮𝓼.
𝓢: but you'll have to excuse those who stick with the true meaning.
𝓓: From the page the above quoted synopsis links to:
𝓖𝓮𝓽 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓶𝓸𝓼𝓽 𝓽𝓻𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓭, 𝕦𝕡-𝕥𝕠-𝕕𝕒𝕥𝕖 𝕕𝕖𝕗𝕚𝕟𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕤 𝓯𝓻𝓸𝓶 𝓜𝓮𝓻𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓶-𝓦𝓮𝓫𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓻.
𝓓: "True meaning"? When? You know damn well the meanings can drift with time.
𝕖𝕥𝕪𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕝𝕚𝕟𝕖.𝕔𝕠𝕞
𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕠𝕟𝕝𝕚𝕟𝕖 𝕖𝕥𝕪𝕞𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕪 𝕕𝕚𝕔𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕒𝕣𝕪 (𝕖𝕥𝕪𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕝𝕚𝕟𝕖) 𝕚𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕚𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕣𝕟𝕖𝕥'𝕤 𝕘𝕠-𝕥𝕠 𝕤𝕠𝕦𝕣𝕔𝕖 𝕗𝕠𝕣 𝕢𝕦𝕚𝕔𝕜 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕣𝕖𝕝𝕚𝕒𝕓𝕝𝕖 𝕒𝕔𝕔𝕠𝕦𝕟𝕥𝕤 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕠𝕣𝕚𝕘𝕚𝕟 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕙𝕚𝕤𝕥𝕠𝕣𝕪 𝕠𝕗 𝔼𝕟𝕘𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕙 𝕨𝕠𝕣𝕕𝕤, 𝕡𝕙𝕣𝕒𝕤𝕖𝕤, 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕚𝕕𝕚𝕠𝕞𝕤. 𝕀𝕥 𝕚𝕤 𝕡𝕣𝕠𝕗𝕖𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕒𝕝 𝕖𝕟𝕠𝕦𝕘𝕙 𝕥𝕠 𝕤𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕤𝕗𝕪 𝕒𝕔𝕒𝕕𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔 𝕤𝕥𝕒𝕟𝕕𝕒𝕣𝕕𝕤, 𝕓𝕦𝕥 𝕒𝕔𝕔𝕖𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕓𝕝𝕖 𝕖𝕟𝕠𝕦𝕘𝕙 𝕥𝕠 𝕓𝕖 𝕦𝕤𝕖𝕕 𝕓𝕪 𝕒𝕟𝕪𝕠𝕟𝕖.
“𝓦𝓱𝓮𝓷 𝓘 𝓾𝓼𝓮 𝓪 𝔀𝓸𝓻𝓭,” 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓹𝓽𝔂 𝓓𝓾𝓶𝓹𝓽𝔂 𝓼𝓪𝓲𝓭 𝓲𝓷 𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻 𝓪 𝓼𝓬𝓸𝓻𝓷𝓯𝓾𝓵 𝓽𝓸𝓷𝓮, “𝓲𝓽 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽 𝔀𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓘 𝓬𝓱𝓸𝓸𝓼𝓮 𝓲𝓽 𝓽𝓸 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓷 — 𝓷𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻 𝓶𝓸𝓻𝓮 𝓷𝓸𝓻 𝓵𝓮𝓼𝓼.”
“𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓲𝓼,” 𝓼𝓪𝓲𝓭 𝓐𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓮, “𝔀𝓱𝓮𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻 𝔂𝓸𝓾 𝓬𝓪𝓷 𝓶𝓪𝓴𝓮 𝔀𝓸𝓻𝓭𝓼 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓷 𝓼𝓸 𝓶𝓪𝓷𝔂 𝓭𝓲𝓯𝓯𝓮𝓻𝓮𝓷𝓽 𝓽𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓰𝓼.”
“𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓲𝓼,” 𝓼𝓪𝓲𝓭 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓹𝓽𝔂 𝓓𝓾𝓶𝓹𝓽𝔂, “𝔀𝓱𝓲𝓬𝓱 𝓲𝓼 𝓽𝓸 𝓫𝓮 𝓶𝓪𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓻 – – 𝓽𝓱𝓪𝓽’𝓼 𝓪𝓵𝓵.”
you're the one inventing your own conclusions here. And you seem to think that others owe you their time and energy. I advise you to get over that, no one owes you an audience. Guess what? You don't owe me an audience either! You can simply not read this. It doesn't matter. This pointless back-and-forth based on your ludicrous postulate is an enormous waste of my time.
I'm especially thankful for the country I live in today, because I know that people with beliefs like yours cannot hurt me and my children. Your fantasy world will never become reality, thank goodness. Maybe you should think about getting a new hobby, idk.
You got that backwards. A cop's job is to treat everyone else as criminals. They are the ones dehumanizing all people they arrest (questioning and traffic stop are a form of arrest). They are enforcing edicts that are an aggression against people who have caused no harm. They are dehumanizing all others while in the role of state agent.
You being your own responsibility is profound and if you understood the implications, you would understand natural law better.
I don't agree at all with the first paragraph, and I have no more desire to "understand natural law better" than I have to understand the Rapunzel fairy tale. It's a fantasy.
the other thing that I really find disturbing about natural law believers/anarchists in general is that their vision of society without government includes an awareness that people will die. Innocent people. It's like "oh, you didn't know how to defend yourself? Sorry you died, but that's natural law." "Oh, you were too old to take care of yourself and had no family left? Sorry you died, but that's natural law." "Oh, you're a pacifist and don't believe in owning a gun? Sorry you died but that's natural law." "Oh, you're an orphan that no one wants? Sorry you died, but that's natural law." It's like passive aggressive genocide with a sprinkling of eugenics. And yet I'M the one accused of having poor morals. Unbelievable. It really boggles my mind.
a system of hierarchy can be different from a governmental (govern mental) system.
Do you think the majority would agree a system of "community guidelines" aught be made by the community and be one of voluntary association? Wouldn't that foundation alone make obsolete the unethical system of involuntary association?.. and we can build from there?
What Evan said 😁
He beat me to the punch.
-
𝓢: This pointless back-and-forth based on your ludicrous postulate is an enormous waste of my time.
Yes. I understand your opinion that discussing your errant beliefs 𝒾𝓈 𝒶𝓃 𝑒𝓃𝑜𝓇𝓂𝑜𝓊𝓈 𝓌𝒶𝓈𝓉𝑒 𝑜𝒻 [your] 𝓉𝒾𝓂𝑒.
When you state your beliefs and opinions as facts, you, college person, should understand scholarly discussions of the errors will follow.
You made a specific implied claim that my 𝓅𝑜𝓈𝓉𝓊𝓁𝒶𝓉𝑒 is 𝓁𝓊𝒹𝒾𝒸𝓇𝑜𝓊𝓈.
I challenge bullshit when bullshit is presented as truth.
Please state my 𝓅𝑜𝓈𝓉𝓊𝓁𝒶𝓉𝑒. If you state it correctly, I will then ask for you to state why it's 𝓁𝓊𝒹𝒾𝒸𝓇𝑜𝓊𝓈
𝓢: I'm especially thankful for the country I live in today, because I know that people with beliefs like yours cannot hurt me and my children. Your fantasy world will never become reality, thank goodness.
What, specifically, are my 𝒷𝑒𝓁𝒾𝑒𝒻𝓈?
https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/ (https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid033AtkKYgd26X56iGyBhkbKm4BQrVWAbUG2FkEad55KJi4TJqPEL2NWUHHdVqDVkaRl?comment_id=915488363139681&reply_comment_id=710666680675998)
EW then you're just renaming the hierarchy. Call it an Apple for all I care, Apple is going to piss you off the first time it makes a rule/law/"community guidelines" (how are those different things?) that you don't agree with. But maybe Debra does want that guideline/law, and now you have your first disagreement, and there you have politics in a nutshell. If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig, and calling a law a guideline isn't changing what it is. Calling community leaders by Apple, Orange, and Banana isn't going to change their role in society (although it would make town hall meetings much more entertaining). And what you are describing is exactly what the founding fathers were attempting to do when developing the democratic republic we now live within. Don't you understand? We've already been "building from there" for hundreds of years. If you don't want to "voluntarily associate" with the policies, laws, etc of the United States, then why don't you move somewhere else that more closely aligns with your values? Could it be because there is nowhere else? Could that be because large, complex societies can not possibly meet the expectations and qualms of every single individual? Luckily, we have several countries on Earth that do a pretty darn good job though. If you're American, I hope you understand the incredible privilege you hold on the world stage.
I am fortunate to live in a very citizen-driven community, and I realize that. Our citizens are vocal and very involved in local politics. I enjoy living here because I can see changes happen in real time. We have an excellent police force, low crime, almost non-existent violent crime, and a really wonderful balance between those who are more liberal minded and those who are more conservative minded (I believe we need both to provide checks and balances in society). The state I live in has lenient laws overall, and I still haven't seen a law that doesn't make sense.
If all else fails, you could always move to Texas. They are talking about seceding from the US (again). Though I doubt that law-and-order Texans are going to get on board with no laws. But they do like guns, so you have that in your favor.
it's simple. You state natural law as fact, when it is not. You believe society should be structured around "natural law", while I do not. Since we can not agree on either of those points, further discussion is pointless. Your insistence to attempt to control the conversation, down to the most trivial minutiae, based on your own personal laws of informal conversation (this is a discussion on Facebook, not a thesis) shows me that you have a controlling, micro-managing personality. Ironically, you might do quite well in medicine or law, so it's too bad you are opposed to such things.
𝓢: I'm especially thankful for the country I live in today, because I know that people with beliefs like yours cannot hurt me and my children.
You have just accused me of being willing to and intending to hurt you and your children.
Prevented by some magical reason tied to living in the 𝓾nited 𝓢tates.
Present your evidence that I, Dale Eastman, are willing to and intending to hurt you and your children.
Black law absolute defense against claims of libel is the truth. Truth is proven with evidence and testimony.
first, I didn't say "you", I said "people like you". And I didn't say anything about "intending" to hurt. But your ideals absolutely *condone* untimely death, as long as it falls under natural law. Like I said to Debra Osborn above, it's like passive aggressive genocide, with a sprinkling of eugenics:
"...the other thing that I really find disturbing about natural law believers/anarchists in general is that their vision of society without government includes an awareness that people will die. Innocent people. It's like "oh, you didn't know how to defend yourself? Sorry you died, but that's natural law." "Oh, you were too old to take care of yourself and had no family left? Sorry you died, but that's natural law." "Oh, you're a pacifist and don't believe in owning a gun? Sorry you died, but that's natural law." "Oh, you're an orphan that no one wants? Sorry you died, but that's natural law." It's like passive aggressive genocide with a sprinkling of eugenics. And yet I'M the one accused of having poor morals. Unbelievable. It really boggles my mind."
Plus the absolute certainly of war. If you really think that we wouldn't immediately plunge into civil war, and probably war with Russia (actually, they'd probably just drop a nuke on us knowing there would be no retaliation), then you're naive.
All that combined (actually, it would only take one of those things) shows me that if I or my children or anyone else died due to any of the above, the general reaction would be a shrug, instead of outrage at very preventable deaths.
To me, that shows a lack of empathy, a lack of ethics, and a lack of morality. You want what you want, to hell with the consequences.
If you really think it would be all butterflies and rainbows and none of that *bad stuff* would happen, then you're ignorant or naive.
𝓢: shows me that you have a controlling, micro-managing personality.
𝒯𝒽𝑜𝓊 𝒽𝓎𝓅𝑜𝒸𝓇𝒾𝓉𝑒, 𝒻𝒾𝓇𝓈𝓉 𝒸𝒶𝓈𝓉 𝑜𝓊𝓉 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒷𝑒𝒶𝓂 𝑜𝓊𝓉 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓃𝑒 𝑜𝓌𝓃 𝑒𝓎𝑒; 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓃 𝓈𝒽𝒶𝓁𝓉 𝓉𝒽𝑜𝓊 𝓈𝑒𝑒 𝒸𝓁𝑒𝒶𝓇𝓁𝓎 𝓉𝑜 𝒸𝒶𝓈𝓉 𝑜𝓊𝓉 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓂𝑜𝓉𝑒 𝑜𝓊𝓉 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝒽𝓎 𝒷𝓇𝑜𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇'𝓈 𝑒𝓎𝑒.
Or in my own vernacular, stop calling my by your maiden name.
𝓢: first, I didn't say "you", I said "people like you".
Now as to the other 261 words of your post... It is my opinion that you are just making shit up as you go.
It is my observation that you ignore points presented. I do not know if this ignorance is deliberate, an oversight, or an overwhelming of simply too many points to focus on. Nor do I care why you do this. I will take notice that too many concepts and words confuse you and will adjust my posts accordingly.
Back to your words of bullshit.
𝓢: I didn't say "you", I said "people like you".
You have just accused myself and people like me of being willing to and intending to hurt you and your children.
I AM a person like me. So is your sister, EW & TW.
You have accused four people in this discussion of being willing to and intending to hurt you and your children.
𝓢: people with beliefs like yours cannot hurt me and my children.
Present your evidence that I, Dale Eastman, your sister Debra Osborn, Tim Wingate, and Evan Wade are willing to and intending to hurt you and your children. Prevented by some magical reason tied to living in the 𝓾nited 𝓢tates.
Black law absolute defense against claims of libel is the truth. Truth is proven with evidence and testimony.
(P.S. How did living in the 𝓾nited 𝓢tates work out for the American Indians aka Native Americans?)
XXX (https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid033AtkKYgd26X56iGyBhkbKm4BQrVWAbUG2FkEad55KJi4TJqPEL2NWUHHdVqDVkaRl?comment_id=915488363139681&reply_comment_id=3856227534648973)
I already answered your question in my last reply. Parts of which, I noticed you are ignoring.
You DO know that Native Americans were not living under the current constitution, right?
In fact, one could argue that they were living about as close to your imagined natural law society as we can find.
How did that work out for them?
The misconception you seem to have about anarchy is that there are no rules.
Yes, there are rules. "Archon" the part of anarchy that is the noun, means ruler, not rules.
You are simply without an entity that has the sole right of aggression and monopoly on the use of violence.
rules that no one enforces. Sounds kinda pointless tbh.
All of that happens now. People die all the time who didn't know how to defend themselves. Or they die because they're a pacifist and don't believe in using defensive force, or no family to take care of them, or orphans on the street, etc. That will not happen more and could quite possibly happen less if people were free to do run charity without government red tape.
Anarchy is not a utopia, it merely recognizes that society is self organizing. And any belief in an entity that is an outside, centralized authority is illegitimate. All responsibility lies with the individual at all times, whether or not a centralized government exists and agents of such are also responsible for their actions, even if they think they can defer them to an "authority."
All commands, rules, dictates, "laws," mandates, etc that are immoral to do as a natural man or woman are also immoral as an agent of the state.
In other words, if it's wrong for you to do something, it's also wrong for the cop or state agent to do so, even if some politician passed a "law" that magically allowed that state agent to aggress against peaceful men and women.
so you want people who are not harming anyone to be harassed, caged or be defrauded because they are not obeying a rule?
Any "malum in se" law is enforceable by anyone. Anything else is a violation against another man or woman.
what would you do if you discovered the new world order that every president (ceo) of the Title 28 usc § 3002 15 "United States" means - (A) a Federal corporation (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002) since George H W Bush, has openly advocated, is about totalitarian control instead of freeing/liberating humanity?
Would you try to warn people? How? What would you say?
If a small group of corporate CEOs ran the world, why wouldn't we hear about it in the news?.. that they own?
The American Empire and its Media
https://swprs.org/the-american-empire-and-its-media/
https://swprs.org/wp-content/uploads/201…
https://swprs.org/wp-content/uploads/201…
🚩Coercive, deceptive, secretive, violence advocating people calling themselves "governments" and censorship-using social media platforms in bed together is an example of extremism.
🚩Interestingly, the American definition of terrorism is a reversal of the word's original meaning, given in the Oxford English Dictionary as "government by intimidation".
🚩Regulatory Capture: In politics, regulatory capture (also agency capture and client politics) is a form of corruption of "authority" that occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulator is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency, such as a particular geographic area, industry, profession, or ideological group.
🚩When regulatory capture occurs, a special interest is prioritized over the general interests of the public, leading to a net loss for society. The theory of client politics is related to that of rent-seeking and political failure; client politics occurs when most or all of the benefits of a program go to some single, reasonably small interest (e.g., industry, profession, or locality) but most or all of the costs will be borne by a large number of people (for example, all taxpayers).
🚩If you suggest to the average man or woman that maybe god does not exist, he will likely respond with less emotion and hostility than if you bring up the idea of life without government. This indicates which religion people are more deeply emotionally attached to and which religion they actually believe in more firmly.
Larken Rose's
---- THE FIVE QUESTIONS ----
1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?
2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?
3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?
4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?
5) When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to "obey the law"?
... would you use quotes?
🚩Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.
- Woodrow Wilson
🚩In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
- Franklin D Roosevelt
🚩For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
- David Rockefeller
🚩The end goal is to get everybody chipped, to control the whole society, to have the bankers and the elite people control the world.
- Nicholas Rockefeller
The quotes above suggest and directly state an agenda.
Warnings and encouragements:
🚩Armies, debts and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
- James Madison
🚩There are two ways to enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.
- John Adams
🚩When plunder becomes a way of life for a group living together in a society, they will create for themselves in the course of time a legal system which authorizes it, and, a moral code which glorifies it. 🧠 When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.
- Frederic Bastiat
🧠 It does not take a majority to prevail...but rather, an irate tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.
- Samuel Adams
🧠To eliminate statism is not to physically subdue the rulers, but to mentally liberate the ruled.
- Jakub Bozydar Wisniewski
🧠Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds.
- Bob Marley (via Marcus Garvey)
🧠When enough people understand reality, tyrants can literally be ignored out of existence. They can't ever be voted out of existence.
- Larken Rose
...we should somehow appeal to all our friends and family in "law enforcement" and the military. Order followers are the people who keep the system of slavery in place and they serve and protect by serving the "powers that shouldn't be" with protection from those they want to rule.
We're taught as children that obedience to "authority" is a virtue and that doing as you're told makes you a good person and all of the worst tyrannies in history depended upon people believing that. In reality, being moral means following your conscience and doing the right thing even when "authority" tells you not to.
Changing people within the system changes nothing, because the people do not run the system, the system runs the people. We need the right systems, not the right people.
Do you think the majority would agree a system of "community guidelines" aught be made by the community and be one of voluntary association? Wouldn't that foundation alone make obsolete the unethical system of involuntary association?.. and we can build from there?
Not forgetting that dying societies accumulate laws like dying men accumulate remedies, legislation cannot force morality, and good people don't need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.
To be and see the good one wants to see in the world, does one first become aware that happiness and freedom begin with a clear understanding of a single principle - some things are within one's control, and some things are not?.. That the only one you can improve is yourself, and by that you set an example which ripples out inspiration?
May I cultivate the serenity to accept that I don't have the right to violate others, the courage to change the things I can through voluntary interactions, and, the consciousness to never attempt delegating a right I do not have to politicians to violate others on my behalf.
Happening now:
End of slavery summit
https://nita.one/summit
Just suggesting: T-y-p-e s-l-o-w-e-r, use smaller words, use less words.
(Yes, that was a disrespectful snarkasm because of Statist comments elsewhere in this thread.)
On State sponsored school:
In our secular society, school has become the replacement for church, and like church, it requires that it's teachings must be taken on faith. - John Taylor Gatto School is about learning to wait your turn, however long it takes to come, if ever. And how to submit with a show of enthusiasm to the judgement of strangers, even if they are wrong, even if your enthusiasm is phony. - John Taylor Gatto When you take the free will out of education, that turns it into schooling. - John Taylor Gatto Whatever an education is, it should make you a unique individual, not a conformist. - John Taylor Gatto It is absurd and anti-life to be part of a system that compels you to listen to a stranger reading poetry when you want to learn to construct buildings, or to sit with a stranger discussing the construction of buildings when you want to read poetry. - John Taylor Gatto I have come slowly to understand what it is I really teach: a curriculum of confusion, class position, arbitrary justice, vulgarity, rudeness, disrespect for privacy, indifference to quality, and utter dependency. I teach how to fit into a world I don't want to live in. - John Taylor Gatto NY State Teacher of the Year & 3x NY City Teacher of the Year That erroneous assumption is to the effect that the aim of public education is to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence, and so make them fit to discharge the duties of citizenship in an enlightened and independent manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all, it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else. - H. L. Mencken (American journalist and essayist), 1925 It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry... It is a very grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of duty. - Albert Einstein (Austrian-American physicist), 1951 Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. - Thurgood Marshall (U.S. Supreme Court Judge), 1969 A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body. - John Stuart Mill (British philosopher and political theorist), 1859 Take at hazard one hundred children of several educated generations and one hundred uneducated children of the people and compare them in anything you please; in strength, in agility, in mind, in the ability to acquire knowledge, even in morality--and in all respects you are startled by the vast superiority on the side of the children of the uneducated. - Leo Tolstoy …there shall be compulsory education, as the saying is, of all and sundry, as far this is possible; and the pupils shall be regarded as belonging to the state rather than to their parents. - Plato (Greek philosopher), The Laws, 4th Century B.C. And after 15,000 plus hours, and once obedience to authority becomes equated with virtue, you or your "child" can attend an academy. I was the CIA Director. We lied, we cheated, we stole... We had entire training courses... - Mike Pompeo The key to freedom and education is critical thinking skills. Without those skills it is harder to separate fact from fiction, truth from propaganda or even right from wrong. Those who exercise these skills and are autodidactic possess a more powerful defense against tyranny than all the guns and ammo in the world. Of course, keep your guns and ammo. Always be prepared to defend yourself against violence with no less than equal force (if possible - not forgetting there are very few private tank and anti-aircraft owners). https://youtu.be/CMhURei8N6Q
𝓢: I already answered your question in my last reply. Parts of which, I noticed you are ignoring.
And I already called you out for calling me by your maiden name. I also called you out on your 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝑜𝓁𝓁𝒾𝓃𝑔, 𝓂𝒾𝒸𝓇𝑜-𝓂𝒶𝓃𝒶𝑔𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓅𝑒𝓇𝓈𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓉𝓎.
I am now directly calling you out on your libel of myself and three others:
𝓓: You have accused four people in this discussion of being willing to and intending to hurt you and your children.
𝓢: people with beliefs like yours cannot hurt me and my children.
𝓓: Present your evidence that I, Dale Eastman, your sister Debra Osborn, Tim Wingate, and Evan Wade are willing to and intending to hurt you and your children. Prevented by some magical reason tied to living in the 𝓾nited 𝓢tates. Black law absolute defense against claims of libel is the truth. Truth is proven with evidence and testimony.
Second inquiry, directly asked and not implied:
Post your evidence that I, Dale Eastman, Debra Osborn, Tim Wingate, and Evan Wade are willing to and intending to hurt you and your children.
xxx (https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid033AtkKYgd26X56iGyBhkbKm4BQrVWAbUG2FkEad55KJi4TJqPEL2NWUHHdVqDVkaRl?comment_id=915488363139681&reply_comment_id=1399118687158899)
I don't have time to address everything now, but wanted to comment on this:
"All of that happens now. People die all the time who didn't know how to defend themselves..." Or are physically unable to. It will happen more. Of course it will. Do you really think you could take on any reasonably sized healthy man? You couldn't. Unless you walk around with your gun cocked and ready 24/7, anyone with awareness can muscle you to a disadvantage. Or simply pull their gun on you. And now there are no police to respond, no one to report to, so murderers and rapists get away with it and escalate. Form gangs. Form mobs. This is the way humans act, like it or not. When you remove the threat of a jail cell and a judge with a gavel, you're asking for the underbelly of human behavior to show. Passive aggressive genocide of the weak and unskilled.
"...Or they die because they're a pacifist and don't believe in using defensive force,..." That's not what I meant. In a world where the guy with the biggest gun gets what he wants (because let's be honest, why wouldn't that happen? He knows no one is going to arrest him, right? No judge or jury, right?), then pacifists are selectively killed off. Passive aggressive genocide of the peaceful.
"...or no family to take care of them, or orphans on the street, etc. That will not happen more and could quite possibly happen less if people were free to run charity without government red tape." Elderly people with no family are currently cared for by... You guessed it... The government. Without government help, the elderly homeless population would explode. And I'm not even going to talk about the people in care homes, that's just a sad reality of a whole lot of people who require a whole lot of care which is mainly paid for by Medicare. Passive aggressive senicide.
There are not many orphans on the street in the USA. Know why? Yup, the government. At any given time there are about 400,000 foster kids in the USA and about 100,000 waiting for someone to adopt them. Around 23,000 children age out of the US foster care system every year. Those numbers are bound to go up, too, if drugs are no longer illegal, since the majority of foster kids are in foster care due to parental drug use and subsequent neglect/abuse. Although maybe those numbers wouldn't go up, because we'd just let those kids die instead of put them in foster care, right? Volunteerism is already never enough for the number of kids who don't have homes, btw. Even with financial incentives, people don't have the time, space, energy, or desire (same with caring for the elderly). Passive aggressive genocide of our most precious and vulnerable.
Dale Eastman for someone who hates the idea of law, you sure like to make-believe you are a lawyer.
what would you do if you discovered I've already read all this crap, because I used to live in your fantasy world?
Hey, if I escaped, you can too.
no, I only want people who are harming other people to be stopped or arrested. But harm is not just immediate physical danger. Speeding, running red lights, etc are all putting others at risk. Plus there is financial harm, etc. I believe we have already discussed this ad nauseam. Is there something in particular you want to discuss? Because we have covered this multiple times.
𝓢: Dale Eastman for someone who hates the idea of law, you sure like to make-believe you are a lawyer.
That is just you making up more shit about that you believe I am about.
I don't need libel laws to righteously call you a liar.
Now, third inquiry:
Post your evidence that I, Dale Eastman, Debra Osborn, Tim Wingate, and Evan Wade are willing to and intending to hurt you and your children.
xxx (https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid033AtkKYgd26X56iGyBhkbKm4BQrVWAbUG2FkEad55KJi4TJqPEL2NWUHHdVqDVkaRl?comment_id=915488363139681&reply_comment_id=714120780109211)
interesting that you're very bothered by my statement. For someone who relies on something like *luck* to prevent an A-bomb from being dropped on our heads, and who does not seem to worry at all about civil war (among a heavily armed society with an ocean of polarized beliefs and a healthy dose of toxic masculinity) I wouldn't expect you to care that anyone (me) noticed your lack of interest in safety, or preservation of life.
You, here, are the liar. You added the words "willing and intending" to my general statement and are now inexplicably outraged at your own words.
yyy (https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid033AtkKYgd26X56iGyBhkbKm4BQrVWAbUG2FkEad55KJi4TJqPEL2NWUHHdVqDVkaRl?comment_id=915488363139681&reply_comment_id=3484641808475979)
-
, it's the real world. The U.S. IS a corporation. "Regulatory Capture" is a REAL problem. Maybe you should read it again.
Sight of the reason for caring/connection with Agape is lost the moment one places another on a pedestal, or "looks down" on another, or takes pleasure in knowing another suffers, or harm is wished on anyone because they're anti or pro anything (democratic, republican, anarchist, statist, vaxx, etc). If you find yourself there, get out your compass.
If health (not the hokey pokey) is what it's really all about, and, as health is comprised of compassion, (natural, willful) peace (...not by force), love, companionships, friendships, happiness, family, community, freedom, access to (un████████) information for the opportunity to become intelligent and wise by a rightly free and critical thought process, mutually consensual contracts, creativity and co-creativity,...You probably get the picture...
𝙃𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙝 to All.
you know what? I agree with you. The powerful in the USA are the ultra rich, they have too much influence and are almost untouchable. Unchecked capitalism leads to the income disparity we see today. How do we fix this problem? There is only one way. And yes, it involves the use of laws. That's what really boggles my mind: if governmental controls are removed, income disparity will get even worse, not better. The powerful will become more powerful, because money IS power.
I also agree with you that anyone who looks down on others or takes pleasure in (or even hopes for) others' suffering is, to put it mildly, messed up. But standing for something, because you know it is right, is not the same thing.
Anarchism is morally, ethically wrong. Knowing what will happen to others, and still pushing for a violent model, is wrong. I know that you probably believe it is a peaceful model, but any analysis of the world powers, especially those who hate us, shows otherwise. I hate war. I hate the idea of being plunged into either civil war or world war. I hope you feel the same.
Anarchists appear, to me, to be eager for violence. I know you probably do not agree, but from the outside looking in, we see people who love guns, who seem to revel in the idea of standing in for police officers (who, ironically, they hate). With a wink and a nudge, they take care of their own business. No pesky laws to get in the way of using their firearms. No judge or jury to discover real intentions. I am extremely suspicious of anyone who wants to do away with our ability to use forensics to discover truth. Sometimes I wonder if anarchists don't understand how many violent offenders live among us. Or maybe they don't care about anyone but themselves, and have a false sense of security in their own questionable self defense skills. But yeah, as my daughter would say, "sounds kinda sus".
There are, unfortunately, many mentally disturbed individuals in the world. As a nurse, I've cared for quite a few of them. Murderers, drug addicts, robbers, you name it. Prisons don't have more than first aid capability, so typically when felons have health issues they have to come to the hospital. When I think of these charming characters just being out in society, it gives me chills.
I am very curious, too, to know: what is the plan? If anarchists really want change, how do they think that will happen? Or are they generally aware that it is a pipe dream that will never happen? Do they want to take over one state? One city? The country? Some other country? Or is it really they just want to be big mad about something that will never change? It seems pointless and such a waste of time and life. But maybe I just don't understand the goal.
The idea that without government warlords would take power is absurd since warlords ARE in power. Anyone who says different is campaigning.
Are you ignoring the "regulatory capture" problem?..that dying societies accumulate laws like dying men accumulate remedies?..that good people don't need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws?..that legislation cannot force morality?..that to be and see good in the world, one will first become aware that happiness and freedom begin with a clear understanding of a single principle - some things are within one's control and some things are not?..that the only way to improve society is to improve yourself because the only one you can improve is yourself, and by that you set an example which ripples out inspiration?
The philosophy of voluntaryism, if realized, will likely be the skeleton key that frees Us from the shackles of parasitic, tyrannical psychopaths.
𝓢: You added the words "willing and intending" to my general statement and are now inexplicably outraged at your own words.
Actually, I am amused at your squirming and making shit up in your attempt to get out from under your own words.
Since you have taken issue in my use of the words "willing and intending" I will refer back to your original lie exactly as YOU presented it:
𝓢: I'm especially thankful for the country I live in today, because I know that people with beliefs like yours cannot hurt me and my children.
I will now remove your words of magical thinking, so here's your words with the extraneous fat trimmed off:
𝓢: because I know that people with beliefs like yours cannot hurt me and my children.
And now the magic location thinking connective is removed:
𝓢: I know that people with beliefs like yours cannot hurt me and my children.
Are you going to claim that you did not succinctly imply that people with beliefs like me would hurt you and your children if not for your location in some magical location?
ddd (https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid0ydFZQP4GB3TmBwd2UdVfetkSL3mZURZboQc1eT6z1w3TFL2pFQXZM2qPMJpvberTl?comment_id=915488363139681&reply_comment_id=549502417113468)
please name the "warlords" in power. I mean in the USA, not the rest of the world. And then realize that it is the rest of the world who would love it if we were without government. You still haven't shared your feelings about that, I noticed.
My 8th grader could educate you on regulatory capture and why it occurs, and how to prevent and correct it (she just took an exam on this concept last week). It's not a mythical concept that no one but anarchists are aware of. And it's not "dying societies" where it occurs, it occurs in every society and corporation.
The "bad guys will break laws and good guys don't need them" argument is soooo tired. It's like, here's this giant spectrum of humans and behaviors, and you pick the 10% on either end to build an argument. The other 80% of people exist somewhere between "good" and "bad" or whatever you want to call it. Besides, accountability is the whole point; I don't know about you, but I don't want murderers and rapists and child molesters etc etc etc doing whatever they want and having zero ability to discover who they are or jailing them. Why are you ok with that?
Voluntarism is a fantasy. I'm happy that you somehow have that much faith in mankind to believe that that would actually work, but it won't. Sociologists have studied humans long enough to provide you with lots of research on the matter, if you're curious, but in general humans simply dehumanize others who they could "help" to assuage their feelings of guilt, in order to feel justified in not helping them. Move away from philosophy and into sociology for a while, so you can see how the world ACTUALLY works, instead of how your philosophy tells you it should.
I think it's amusing that you think I'm "squirming and making shit up" in an attempt to "get out from under" my words.
I stand by what I said, and you can die mad about it, for all I care. 🤷🏼♀️ I am extremely thankful that I live in this country, and your crazy ideals have ZERO chance of actually turning this country into an anarchist society. Your crazy ideals can stay in your head, and they can't hurt me or my children. For that, I am extremely thankful.
I wondered about that too, orphans and such. But I have seen it work, in a country that the government has absolutely nothing to do with such. Orphanages and homes/safe houses, drug rehab and care for the elderly are all provided by the people. Those charities and refuges don't get one dime from the government. It's all from the voluntary donations from the community.
I have seen society is self ordering in the absence of a coercive and aggressive political class. And people are compassionate to their fellow man...or children.
You know what? When Mexicans have asked me in the past how I liked Mexico, my response was, "it's awesome, there's a lot more freedom here." They've always seemed both surprised I would say that (because I'm a "gringa" from the US lol) and reaffirm that statement to me.
Most Americans here, either retired or on vacation, are smuggley convinced that they are free, while they try to petition the government of Mexico to enact more restrictions, codes, and laws. Which, of course, government is always all too happy to flex its power and push their growing weight around and extort more money from the people. Government are just a parasitical class. Anything they "provide" is just something to justify their existence in the minds of the men and women they are extorting.
Risk isn't harm. And there are ways to make things safer without harassment and fines.
And fines only control the poor. I have known several rich guys that will ignore fines because they can afford to do so. One guy in Oklahoma, who had a Ferrari and took us for rides in it going 100 mph on surface streets. He'd blow right by the cops and they'd do nothing. Because he was paying a fee for the privilege to do so.
You know what? He slowed down for speed bumps 😉
what does your 8th grader say about Bilderberg, the CFR, the feral reserve..?
the cartel runs much of Mexico. That's what a weak government creates. Mexico has a high risk of violent crime. Murder, armed robbery, sexual assault, kidnapping, extortion, etc. are all commonplace. Children are kidnapped and sexually exploited. The border is a cluster-duck (and I don't mean "duck") of children who were stolen by adults pretending that this kid is their kid, in order to garner sympathy for asylum. Ask Aaron about it, he saw it first hand.
By the way, Mexico is a Hague country. Adoptions are controlled by guidelines set by the Hague Convention. Orphanages are usually run off of *American* donations through missionary groups, which is why many of them end up closing down due to lack of funding (they do receive government funding, but not nearly enough to survive).
Mexico isn't exactly a shining example of what "more freedom" looks like. Or maybe it is, because it proves my point.
I'm calling bullshit on your friend's story. Does he also have oceanfront property in Arizona? Tell him I'm interested. Lol.
Fines don't "only control the poor". The most miserly people I know have money. It's not just the fines, it's the marks on your driving record and increase in insurance fees and the annoyance of driving school. And felony driving can land you in jail. I haven't had a driving ticket in years, but the most annoying thing about it wasn't the money. And I was pretty dang poor back then, lol.
0.2% risk isn't harm. 93% risk is harm. Nuance.
You are not the first person I've had attempt to D⁶ me in discussion.
D⁶ - Dishonest attempts to Distract, Deflect, Divert, Disrupt, and/or Derail.
I am putting my very specific question back on the table directly in front of you.
𝓢: I know that people with beliefs like yours cannot hurt me and my children.
𝓓: Are you going to claim that you did not succinctly imply that people with beliefs like me would hurt you and your children if not for your location in some magical location?
ddd (https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid0ydFZQP4GB3TmBwd2UdVfetkSL3mZURZboQc1eT6z1w3TFL2pFQXZM2qPMJpvberTl?comment_id=915488363139681&reply_comment_id=419745163642313)
stop trying to gaslight me.
Again, yes, that's what I'm saying. The United States isn't magical, but there is no way Americans are going to give up their rights, freedoms, and security to adopt your world view. That's actually both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, and the vast majority in between.
So yes, I feel like I and my children are safe from your ideologies. While you may believe no harm will come, I know better. And so do most other people. In fact, I bet you DO know that there will be war and violence. You just won't say it, because you know what that makes you.
Your ideals are not mine, and in this country, you have no right to force my babies to live in this hellish world that you want. However, IT'S A FREE COUNTRY, so go ahead and keep spreading misinformation and disinformation to whoever will eat it up and not question you. But that person isn't me.
Good luck.
Edited to fix a gap in the fence.
You are not the first person I've had attempt to D⁶ me in discussion.
D⁶ - Dishonest attempts to Distract, Deflect, Divert, Disrupt, and/or Derail.
I am putting my very specific question back on the table directly in front of you.
𝓢: I know that people with beliefs like yours cannot hurt me and my children.
𝓓: Are you going to claim that you did not succinctly imply that people with beliefs like me would hurt you and your children if not for your location in some magical location?
ddd (https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid0ydFZQP4GB3TmBwd2UdVfetkSL3mZURZboQc1eT6z1w3TFL2pFQXZM2qPMJpvberTl?comment_id=915488363139681&reply_comment_id=1345900872889641)
Me: says a thing.
You: did you say this thing?!
Me: Yup. Sure did.
You: Stop trying to deflect! Did you say this thing?
Me: yup, and I'll say it again.
You: stop trying to deny it!
Me: 🤔
You are not the first person I've had attempt to D⁶ me in discussion.
D⁶ - Dishonest attempts to Distract, Deflect, Divert, Disrupt, and/or Derail.
I am putting my very specific question back on the table directly in front of you.
𝓢: I know that people with beliefs like yours cannot hurt me and my children.
𝓓: Are you going to claim that you did not succinctly imply that people with beliefs like me would hurt you and your children.
Well then you are calling bs on my story, because I experienced it first hand. I was sitting in the passenger seat of his Ferrari as we screamed by them. That was the reason he gave me when I asked why the cops weren't chasing us. He has them in his pocket.
The whole damn government is a cartel. Hmmm 🤔 I wonder why they haven't investigated who was Epstein and Maxwell's clients and arrested them. Why would that be? Hmmm, that's a real head scratcher, isn't it?
you experienced a cop not chasing him. You accepted the reason he gave. And if it were true, that's interesting company you keep. 🤔 Remember I used to go on ride-alongs with my ex, and know there are plenty of reasons why a police officer might not pursue someone speeding, especially if they are going very fast and the city has a no-chase ordinance. Or maybe the cop was taking a leak, or was on radio. I was in the squad car one time when he was called and a guy drove by obviously speeding, and he said "can't catch them all" and responded to the call he just received instead. Just saying.
As I always say, money is power, and Epstein/Maxwell WERE the un-touchables. I thought. If there is a "client list", which is highly doubtful, remember that is a completely different crime from sex trafficking. They could be persecuted for solicitation, if there is evidence. Authorities have to compile evidence regarding each individual "client". That process takes years, as we can see just from the prosecution and conviction of Maxwell alone, when there was already mountains of evidence. Listen to some of these cases via podcast and you'll learn how un-speedy the process really is. I hope that they are able to flush out some clients, if they had sexual contact with underage girls. I actually think that prostitution should be legal, so I don't really care about anyone who was over the age of consent. And local laws would matter too.
Lol, he was a business contact when we were doing real estate. We met with him when we went to Oklahoma to check out an opportunity and he showed us a fun time. We have pictures somewhere of both me and Victor sitting in his Ferrari. And it wasn't just me that witnessed just a one time occurrence of him blowing by or even the cops waving at him, lol.
I don't know why it''s hard to believe, cops take a cut all the time.
The only difference between the mafia/cartel and government is the belief that one is legitimate and the other is not.
True criminal types do not fear cops, or incarceration. I remember an interview some journalist did of career criminals in prisons. There's one thing they do fear though and is a deterrent for them, but it has nothing to do with cops, prison or government.
if all that were true, then what would be the point of removing government? When it would simply be replaced by mob? With no regulatory body, no oversight?
How do you know police officers have accepted bribes (I'm not talking about Mexico police)? Know how you know? Because they are discovered, prosecuted, and fired, and we get to read about it on the news. Held accountable. Embarrassed. Shamed. Do you think that a mob, with no laws, and no one to answer to, will be more honorable?
May I suggest that your sister is very good at Distracting, Deflecting, Diverting, Disrupting, and Derailing discussion away from holding her feet to the fire in regard to things she has said?
Did you not notice that she accused you of being a threat to herself and her children because you share the sin of thinking like I do?
May I suggest that you demand she admit to succinctly implying that people with beliefs like you and I ARE a threat and WOULD DEFINITELY hurt her or her children.
I have in the past, though I have not recently.
I'm struggling on a cell phone at the moment. I probably missed her statement that people like us are a threat. And, for some reason, fb will freeze when trying to type a response on my phone, I often lose my entire statement. 😖
Cops are almost never held accountable. They get a slap on the wrist, often paid leave and then they are right back to doing what they do best.
If they are found guilty of misconduct, they don't pay, the state doesn't pay. You pay. Everyone who's getting extorted through their taxes pay the judgement.
And I know a couple of police departments that are known to be corrupt, everyone knows it, even neighboring police districts. And they just keep on doing what they do with no accountability.
since you seem confused about what I said, I'll post it again for you to review. And yes, I still stand by this and will say it a hundred more times.
tell me, how would one know that? I'm curious. How would you know that cops are "almost never held accountable"? My friends, who are current cops in 3 different cities, can tell you what a weight on their shoulders it is to conduct themselves within guidelines because they know that at any moment, someone could call them out and they could be disciplined. Or even if they word something wrong, or even misspell a word or make a typo on their report, they can be held accountable and if that case goes to court they will literally say things like "did you know you spelled this incorrectly?" to throw doubt on their testimony. Lawyers love to use "officer misconduct" to create reasonable doubt. They don't have to show proof, just suggest it. Jurors love it.
I know that there are corrupt cops, and it really pisses me off. But the reality is, they are few and far between. And they seem to concentrate in certain areas (cough cough SOUTH cough cough). Like it or not, the solution is more laws. Like the camera laws they have enacted in some states/counties. But guess what? It will never be the 100% perfection that you want, because cops are still human.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
𝓢: since you seem confused about what I said, I'll post it again for you to review. And yes, I still stand by this and will say it a hundred more times.
I read it the first time you presented it.
You stand by your claim that your sister is a threat to you.
-
her beliefs? Your beliefs? No, they are not a threat because they will NEVER become common in the USA. That's the point. Is that why you're so mad? Because you know I'm right? And trying to twist what I said? Unsuccessfully, I might add. I especially like the addition of "...WOULD DEFINITELY hurt her or her children." That was some good hyperbole, well done. 😂
ah, there it is. Yup I missed that.Well that definitely sounds like you're calling people who think like me and Dale Eastman a threat to you and your kids.
I am curious, how do you propose that the "country that you live in" would prevent our ideas from becoming a reality? Because that definitely sounds like a threat to people who think like me. A threat that you are willing to use against me. Exactly how are you going to prevent my ideas from threatening you?
I think you are forgetting the very first cop you ever knew. The one you did babysitting for when you were a teenager. What did he tell you about cops?
What he told you is the same as other cops, both retired and active, have told me. Actually, that's mild compared to what some have told me.
because very few would ever actually entertain such radical ideals. Most people don't want their kids to die in an unnecessary war, wouldn't you agree? And the only way you could ever force the USA to adopt your ideals is literally through *force*. Which is contrary to your ideals, is it not? Unless through passive aggressive means, of course. But yeah, it is a tiny fringe group you belong to and nobody wants what you want. There is no threat. BECAUSE of where we live.
𝓢: I might add. I especially like the addition of "...WOULD DEFINITELY hurt her or her children.
You chose to excerpt my words to your sister. Fair play because I've been doing the same with your words. My secondary, (or is it trinary?), goal is to understand why you think as you do.
Spin this all you wish... I will not be Distracted, Deflected, Diverted, Disrupted, nor Derailed from focusing on the concept you, yourself, presented.
So I will now repeat:
𝓢: I know that people with beliefs like yours cannot hurt me and my children.
𝓓: 𝒜𝓇𝑒 𝓎𝑜𝓊 𝑔𝑜𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝑜 𝒸𝓁𝒶𝒾𝓂 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝓎𝑜𝓊 𝒹𝒾𝒹 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝓈𝓊𝒸𝒸𝒾𝓃𝒸𝓉𝓁𝓎 𝒾𝓂𝓅𝓁𝓎 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝓅𝑒𝑜𝓅𝓁𝑒 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽 𝒷𝑒𝓁𝒾𝑒𝒻𝓈 𝓁𝒾𝓀𝑒 𝓂𝑒 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝒽𝓊𝓇𝓉 𝓎𝑜𝓊 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓎𝑜𝓊𝓇 𝒸𝒽𝒾𝓁𝒹𝓇𝑒𝓃.
It is a yes or no question. Feel free to add more after your one word answer.
She did it again. You asked a question which she totally ignored.
𝒟𝒪: Exactly how are you going to prevent my ideas from threatening you?
To which I note, exactly what those ideas are have NOT been discussed in a succinct, no room for equivocation manner. (That I've been party to.)
he told me that cops will lie to you to try to get you to fess up, which is true. And it's not a secret. Listen to Crime Junkie once in a while, you'll see how strategic they are, and they have to be sometimes. It's not like you're privy to some secret information that no one else knows, literally everyone knows this stuff. Heck, they even put it in fictitious crime shows because it is so well known. That's all beside the point, though. Beating a dead horse, and that horse is named good cop/bad cop. The point is, we need cops. Period. And only a fraction of them do "bad" things (much like the rest of the human population. It's almost like they are... Wait for it... Human!). The only way we can ensure better policing is through more training, more regulation, more surveillance, more accountability, etc, which requires more things that you don't like. Rules, laws, education. We should be advocating for THAT, not taking them all away. When you need a PO, you need a PO. I've needed them several times in my life already. They have helped me with J, they have helped me when I was stuck on the side of the road, they have protected me from a crazy ex, and they are currently working on a cold case that I have information about. If they didn't exist, there would have been no one else to call, no one to help, no one to investigate, no one to solve. Just because you have never needed them, doesn't mean other people don't. And, other people don't view them as someone who is supposed to prevent or fix every single problem in order to be worth something. I do believe that you are allowing your own personal experiences color your feelings quite a bit. It's ok to say "man, we've got some racist, a$$hole cops in this country", but it's also ok to acknowledge that most of them went into police work because they thought it would be an honorable profession. They catch a LOT of hate, and they have to develop thick skins. Kind of like hospital workers, now that I think of it. Policing is full of burnout. Btw, you know that PO I used to date? Brian? He quit the department because of burnout. The ACAB people. He couldn't handle it. He was always a sensitive guy, couldn't handle the constant hate. He went back to construction. Just saying, every profession sucks in its own way, but policing has to be one of the worst. Never know if you're going to have a boring day of traffic stops or if you're going to die. That's gotta suck.
just because an answer isn't what you want to hear, that doesn't make it untrue. I've answered questions honestly. Sorry you don't like it.
I did ask you a question about how the country you live in is going to protect you from people who think like me.
That sounds like you're willing to use the violence of the state against peaceful men and women.
(I'll save my response to the above until later)
what? Why would it be necessary to use violence? I'm saying that the people who live in the USA would never want what you want, so you would have to use force to turn the USA into the kind of society you want. But you won't, since that is against your values. Therefore, in this country, anarchy will never happen. You would probably have more luck in a completely different political atmosphere.
𝓢: just because an answer isn't what you want to hear, that doesn't make it untrue. I've answered questions honestly. Sorry you don't like it.
You are correct. Not hearing answers to my questions is what I don't want to hear. I don't like my questions being ignored.
So I'm going to ask it again...
𝓢: I know that people with beliefs like yours cannot hurt me and my children.
𝓓: 𝒜𝓇𝑒 𝓎𝑜𝓊 𝑔𝑜𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝑜 𝒸𝓁𝒶𝒾𝓂 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝓎𝑜𝓊 𝒹𝒾𝒹 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝓈𝓊𝒸𝒸𝒾𝓃𝒸𝓉𝓁𝓎 𝒾𝓂𝓅𝓁𝓎 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝓅𝑒𝑜𝓅𝓁𝑒 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽 𝒷𝑒𝓁𝒾𝑒𝒻𝓈 𝓁𝒾𝓀𝑒 𝓂𝑒 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝒽𝓊𝓇𝓉 𝓎𝑜𝓊 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓎𝑜𝓊𝓇 𝒸𝒽𝒾𝓁𝒹𝓇𝑒𝓃.
It is a yes or no question. Feel free to add more after your one word answer.
Dale Eastman asked and answered. Repeatedly.
Btw, the way you worded your question is manipulative and misleading, which I am sure is intentional. Nice red herring. You know that I have clarified what I meant, over and over again. Yet you are still hung up on my original comment. It's silly. What is even more silly, is it doesn't matter what my answer is, yes or no, you will manipulate it further. No doubt about it. You're not exactly subtle with your gaslighting and distraction/deflection/diverting etc.
Project much?
You really shouldn't let people, or their comments, live rent free in your head.
𝓢: You know that I have clarified what I meant, over and over again.
You clarify what you meant by first answering YES or NO to my question. Feel free to add more after your one word answer.
𝓢: I know that people with beliefs like yours cannot hurt me and my children.
𝓓: 𝒜𝓇𝑒 𝓎𝑜𝓊 𝑔𝑜𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝑜 𝒸𝓁𝒶𝒾𝓂 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝓎𝑜𝓊 𝒹𝒾𝒹 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝓈𝓊𝒸𝒸𝒾𝓃𝒸𝓉𝓁𝓎 𝒾𝓂𝓅𝓁𝓎 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝓅𝑒𝑜𝓅𝓁𝑒 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽 𝒷𝑒𝓁𝒾𝑒𝒻𝓈 𝓁𝒾𝓀𝑒 𝓂𝑒 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝒽𝓊𝓇𝓉 𝓎𝑜𝓊 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓎𝑜𝓊𝓇 𝒸𝒽𝒾𝓁𝒹𝓇𝑒𝓃.
ok then. No.
𝓢: ok then. No.
Thank you.
Now if your answer of "no" is correct, then why would you claim living in the magical 𝓾nited 𝓢tates would prevent the four of us, I, Dale Eastman, Debra Osborn, Tim Wingate, and Evan Wade, from hurting you and your children?
𝓢: I'm especially thankful for the country I live in today, because I know that people with beliefs like yours cannot hurt me and my children.
Dale Eastman again, asked and answered. You can simply read my last response to Debra Osborn or any of the other four or five other responses.
Watch your head, I'm changing tack and I don't want your head to get hit when the boom swings over.
𝓢: I'm especially thankful for the country I live in today, because I know that people with beliefs like yours cannot hurt me and my children.
How, exactly, would you and your children be hurt by people with beliefs like mine?
have you ever been diagnosed with a personality disorder? My guess would be NPD, you display several of the core characteristics, including control freakish behavior and the attitude that other people owe you something, according to your rules. But BPD is a possibility too.
𝓢: My guess would be [...] A non-sequitur.
𝓢: I'm especially thankful for the country I live in today, because I know that people with beliefs like yours cannot hurt me and my children.
How, exactly, would you and your children be hurt by people with beliefs like mine?
🤷🏼♀️ you didn't answer my question. No further discussion till you answer MY question. Not by your rules this time. My rules. Take as long as you need.
𝓢: have you ever been diagnosed with a personality disorder?
Answer to your non-sequitur question: No.
Now back to my question:
How, exactly, would you and your children be hurt by people with beliefs like mine?
as I have explained MULTIPLE TIMES now: Your beliefs, if translated as you desire into removing government in all forms, would almost certainly lead to war. War leads to death. Understand?
I will not repeat myself anymore. You may ask whatever you want, but if I've already said it over and over again, in not answering. You may have all the time in the world, but I have 4 kids and 3 feet of snow to remove from multiple properties. I remind you that no one owes you their intellectual or emotional labor, and no one owes you an answer to any of your questions. Same in reverse.
I would venture a guess that you have never had a mental health evaluation. So you know, I have dealt with several people with NPD and BPD in my life, and currently still have to deal with two of them in my current interactions. My conversations with you remind me of those who have NPD. Of course, if that were true, you would have little insight and would disregard that diagnosis anyway. Because that's what NPD patients do.
Save your reply for tomorrow. I take the long view on many things. Our discussion of ideologies can wait.
𝓢: as I have explained MULTIPLE TIMES now: Your beliefs, if translated as you desire into removing government in all forms, would almost certainly lead to war. War leads to death. Understand?
Your own words right back at you:
𝓢: Project much?
We can move on now.
𝓢: Your beliefs, if translated as you desire into removing government in all forms
What, specifically, do 𝓨𝓞𝓤 mean when 𝓨𝓞𝓤 use the word "𝕘𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕟𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥"?
What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of 𝕘𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕟𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥?
1440 (https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid033UhGb3z62MuNpTyzG3Z1YJSA53hdkMUuCjGDPEJHK6Ly9vtqPEMq7qZQKP4tETuol?comment_id=915488363139681&reply_comment_id=1204498143776910)
Maybe third time's a charm. I'll keep this short and cheat by skipping ahead to your reply to Dale .
War is the health of the state, people generally don't want to go and kill other people.
So how do my ideas cause you harm?
-
I think I've already said. But to reiterate, removing social programs will hurt many people. Volunteerism will not help, because I know that will be your answer. The costs are extraordinary. Removing social programs will hurt people in our family and our friends. And people we've never met, but should care about.
But really, read the room. You remove government from a nation as powerful and with as many natural resources as the USA, someone is going to either bomb it or take it.
That's just as likely as civil war, in a country as polarized as we are.
In either of those scenarios, the result would be the same. Lots of death. And a placement of a new government. Which you will likely hate even more than this one.
Pointless loss of life for no reason.
𝓢: Removing social programs will hurt people in our family and our friends.
Well... That is an answer of a sort. It did not answer either of the questions asked with specificity in regard to you and your children.
𝓓𝓞: So how do my ideas cause you harm?
𝓓: How, exactly, would you and your children be hurt by people with beliefs like mine?
Are you claiming you and your children would be hurt without social programs?
Which programs specifically?
What percentage of programs you have used are government programs and what percentage of programs are from non government organizations (NGO's)?
Reiterating my specific question about YOUR claims...
𝓢: Your beliefs, if translated as you desire into removing government in all forms
What, specifically, do 𝓨𝓞𝓤 mean when 𝓨𝓞𝓤 use the word "𝕘𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕟𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥"?
What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of 𝕘𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕟𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥?
Dale Eastman I and my children would be hurt due to *war*, as I said.
I also talked about social programs because Debra and I were talking about that vein earlier and I wanted to reiterate. We have a family member who receives social security and other government assistance. I think most of us in our sibling group has been on food stamps at some point. I also have a friend who is elderly, no family, lives very frugally off her social security because she has nothing and no one else. That situation is probably repeated to the tune of hundreds of thousands of elderly people in the USA.
Not interested in starting a new vein, ie defining what government is. I think that we are all aware.
-
𝓢: Not interested in starting a new vein, ie defining what government is. I think that we are all aware.
You and I are NOT "we".
As I wrote earlier, I know, without any doubt, that you and I do NOT agree on what the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of "government" is.
I know, without any doubt, that you will reject all three of my definitions of what government actually is.
I refuse to assume you and I mean the same thing when you or I use the word "𝕘𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕟𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥".
You are refusing to look at observations that provide evidence contrary to your religious beliefs in government.
You are denying points in toto having never looked at them. Did your college education teach you to rate books and movies you've never read nor watched?
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I assume that you believe government has a right to rule.
x (https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid033JYGHuiMCr15fbEWKWHHuxoLWdVQjJnzbxwhUUC4DgHnbFTvyWoRtUcKU5FrLK1Ul?comment_id=915488363139681&reply_comment_id=1617997545301925)
you forget that I was raised by a family who believes/believed the way you do. I was indoctrinated into your beliefs from birth. I have been talking about and debating all of this for years, literally since the age of 11 when I started to think that maybe something wasn't quite right with what my parents were into. It was in my mid 20s that I started to play devil's advocate a lot. This year I will be 45. I am WAY beyond redefining "government". I find these discussions to be tedious, repetitious, and dull. You demanding that I answer your questions feels entitled and coercive. All your theories, my sister's theories, the brainwashing I received from an early age, now is clearly contrived to me and a by-product of confirmation-bias mental gymnastics.
I realize that you are not going to change your mind. That's fine. I don't care what you believe. Please do me the same favor and stop trying to convince me.
social securities, food stamps and other stuff "given" are first taken. You are only pointing out the things that you believe justify violence and coercion.
And if something else is not figured out about how to take care of the elderly that are sans family or the poor within the private market or charity, you're probably going to see the very things happen that you believe the government is protecting them against. It's going to fail, under it's own weight.
Then the government is going to "come to the rescue" but you'll have to be under complete control.
Then the argument on whether government is slavery or not will be a moot point.
As for cops, all cops are bastards while in performance of their duties (except for the rare incident of malum in se, but those laws are in agreement with natural law and anyone can enforce them and I have seen regular everyday people defend against that far more often and effectively). And it's not dependent on whether or not they are decent human beings when the uniform is off. The job requires them to violate the rights of the individual on a regular day to day basis. I have on rare occasion gotten them to take off the uniform, metaphorically, and act like a human. Most times, they are the assholes they are trained to be.
If you would feel like you've overstepped a boundary by chasing someone and forcing them to pull over, then extorting them for going faster than a number on a sign, when they have caused no harm, it follows that is wrong for the cop to do as well, whether or not you think his claim to that authority is legitimate or not. There's no magic enchantment that the government has to make something immoral become moral. And calling one thing by a different name, doesn't change the action. The only thing the government and its agents have is the belief of the aggregate. Once the aggregate understands their authority is illegitimate, they will crumble.
nope, dad and mom were statists. They may have been limited statists, but there's a lot of those. They call them conservatives, Libertarians, etc. They still vote and believe we need a government.
there is no violence or coercion in my life. You should try it out for a while. Seeing victimhood in *everything* is a whole energy that I'm not into.
Ever see the movie Liar Liar? It reminds me of that scene where Jim Carrey screams "STOP BREAKING THE LAW, A$$H0LE!" into the phone.
It's like when Americans travel to another country and expect their rights, that they were raised with, to be upheld. No, freaking American, that's not how things work here. Don't complain that you got into trouble when you were the one traveling to a new place and didn't take the time to study the laws.
Only this isn't a foreign land, it is where we were raised, so we know how rights work here. And one of those rights is we get to complain as much as we want about anything and everything.
"It's all going to fail anyway" isn't a good enough excuse for "I know they'll die but I shouldn't have to help prevent that". I believe in child and elderly welfare, and yes I will die on that hill.
And police officers are still people when they wear their uniform. Like it or not, we as a species have "soldiers", like other species. Only we are sophisticated enough to have different types of "soldiers" and one of those is a type of public servant.
You know our friend who became a PO? Know what he did before that? He was a social worker. He worked 16 hour days, did night visits for families who had one parent and the children were alone at night while the parent worked night shift. He helped feed kids, helped them with homework, got firewood, helped them get $ assistance, etc etc etc. He was truly the best social worker I've ever met, and I've met/worked with a lot of them. He never turned anyone down, even if it meant he didn't get days off. When he decided to become a PO, it was right in the middle of the BLM and ACAB protests. His wife was terrified for him, of course. But I know he brought that same energy to police work. And I've known other sweethearts like him who are POs. One of them used to work for me in retail, years ago, when he was a teen boy. I ran into him during some kind of rally, this had to be 15 years later, and I was in shock. Couldn't believe he was a PO. I heard someone say "Ms Shafer?" and I turned around and there he is in uniform. I gave him the biggest hug. I am so proud of him. A few weeks later, he was shot in a domestic violence confrontation (not fatal) and I saw it in the newspaper. My heart broke. He's the nicest guy.
I don't want to live in a society with no laws, no POs, no social programs, no schools, no scientific thought, no higher learning. Sounds kinda like hell. And I don't know many who would want that either.
𝓢: You demanding that I answer your questions feels entitled and coercive.
You yourself have (rightfully) complained about assumptions I've posted about you. That's a two-way street.
I've not complained. I've asked you clarifying questions about your assumptions and claims.
When you make unsubstantiated claims, which you have done in regard to the four of us you have engaged in discussion with in this thread... Do you recall reading this when I first posted it: I challenge bullshit when bullshit is presented as truth.
If you state an assumption you have made about me, and that claim is not true... I hope you have noticed I do not ignore such statements of bullshit. Do not think for a moment that such claims, not yet challenged, won't be.
𝓢: Please do me the same favor and stop trying to convince me.
Do you recall reading this when I first posted it:
My secondary, (or is it trinary?), goal is to understand why you think as you do.
I am doing exactly what I have intended to do each and every time I've engaged with you. My goal is to examine your beliefs. Openly, publicly, for all to see.
I have found that most liars hate being questioned on their lies. Even when they have managed to forget they lied to themselves.
I asked you to correct me if my assumption was wrong. You either agree with my stated assumption or you ignored that question about my assumption. <shrug>
Do you believe government has a right to rule?
you just can't help yourself, can you?
no, they didn't. Their beliefs changed in subtle ways over the years, but always came back to "government bad, libertarian good". Mom didn't vote. Dad voted begrudgingly.
I specifically remember mom and dad leaving us in Shawn's care so both could go vote.
And if mom stopped voting in the end, did she say why? Or maybe she couldn't? I don't remember her being anti voting when she stayed with me and hubby. She was also still very much for the US Constitution when she was with us.
And I spoke with dad about certain things when he was still visiting with us in Idaho, he was still very much a statist. He still believed the us government was benevolent, especially in the area of human trafficking.
you can recognize the good in government and still believe government is overall wrong. Just like you can recognize the bad in government and still believe it is overall good. Dad changed a ton over the years, but he always wanted to live off the land and be emancipated from government. So did Mom. She tried to rescind our SS numbers. Of course, they had religious reasons too. But both of our parents have always been anti government, anti modern medicine, anti education, anti anything mainstream simply because it's mainstream.
Mom didn't draw hard lines in the sand, but she certainly was not a statist. She believed she should make her own rules and didn't believe in authority. She believed, same as you, that education was indoctrination and thought that anyone in power was automatically "bad".
When she got sick, she changed a lot of her thinking because she realized she couldn't afford treatment without government aid. When she realized she was dying, she didn't care about all that stuff anymore. She even gave up being a vegetarian.
⭕001𝓢: you just can't help yourself, can you?
You need to be more precise, more specific, in what you are questioning me about.
Like this:
Do you believe government has a right to rule?
It's precise, it's specific, it's me trying to learn what you believe about a very narrow part of the world.
x (https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid033JYGHuiMCr15fbEWKWHHuxoLWdVQjJnzbxwhUUC4DgHnbFTvyWoRtUcKU5FrLK1Ul?comment_id=915488363139681&reply_comment_id=869221327630572)
you can be anti public school, anti SSN, anti allopathic, and still believe in the government and its Constitution. The back country of Idaho is full of them, lol.
In fact, Trump was (and maybe still is) their savior 😂
Dad also voted for him.
The little bit I spoke to dad about anarchy, he rejected it, just like you are. But I was still in the learning stages and wasn't fully comprehending anarchy when dad was still alive.
Mom died long before I ever came to any ideas about anarchy, but I do remember her speaking about the constitution like it was the holy grail.
Statists who want a big, powerful government call the statists who want a small, limited government, "anti government," but they are still statists.
-
⭕1
𝓢: Please do me the same favor and stop trying to convince me.
I don't need to convince you. You will do that yourself when you stop willfully ignoring data, information, and truths about the world you and I inhabit...
Unless you're NOT as intelligent as you attempt to have the four of us believe you are.
Your own words right back at you: 𝓈𝓉𝑜𝓅 𝓉𝓇𝓎𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝑜 𝑔𝒶𝓈𝓁𝒾𝑔𝒽𝓉 𝓂𝑒... Prove your intelligence to me.
I am going to take your failure to answer my question (𝒟𝑜 𝓎𝑜𝓊 𝒷𝑒𝓁𝒾𝑒𝓋𝑒 𝑔𝑜𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓃𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝒽𝒶𝓈 𝒶 𝓇𝒾𝑔𝒽𝓉 𝓉𝑜 𝓇𝓊𝓁𝑒?) as your admission that you are too much a coward to admit to what, specifically, the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of your beliefs in "government" are.
I ask again:
Do you believe government has a right to rule?
22 13:35 (https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid0338PFzmScPMBNLjeP5VaHf4nTSmFVPfC5rSh43ufnnKuBpoeXLDmw5FQEw1CP9Wtal?comment_id=915488363139681&reply_comment_id=1258343094718854)
-
Dale Eastman I have asked Sara this before.
She's pretty much mentally dependent on the state and thinks she can differ any responsibility she has for herself or her family to the state (police, emergency services, etc). She loves having her rules enforced on others through the coercion of the state and is actually proud of living within the system of aggression and lauds it as something she's grateful for.
We've gone around and around before on this, I doubt anything you say will change her mind.
She's actually a highly compassionate person, just fears that trait is extremely rare within the human race, probably due to certain life experiences.
𝒮𝑒𝓁𝒻-𝒹𝑒𝒻𝑒𝓃𝒸𝑒, 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇𝑒𝒻𝑜𝓇𝑒, 𝒶𝓈 𝒾𝓉 𝒾𝓈 𝒿𝓊𝓈𝓉𝓁𝓎 𝒸𝒶𝓁𝓁𝑒𝒹 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝒾𝓂𝒶𝓇𝓎 𝓁𝒶𝓌 𝑜𝒻 𝓃𝒶𝓉𝓊𝓇𝑒, 𝓈𝑜 𝒾𝓉 𝒾𝓈 𝓃𝑜𝓉, 𝓃𝑒𝒾𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇 𝒸𝒶𝓃 𝒾𝓉 𝒷𝑒 𝒾𝓃 𝒻𝒶𝒸𝓉, 𝓉𝒶𝓀𝑒𝓃 𝒶𝓌𝒶𝓎 𝒷𝓎 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓁𝒶𝓌 𝑜𝒻 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝑒𝓉𝓎.
𝐼𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝐸𝓃𝑔𝓁𝒾𝓈𝒽 𝓁𝒶𝓌 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝓉𝒾𝒸𝓊𝓁𝒶𝓇𝓁𝓎 𝒾𝓉 𝒾𝓈 𝒽𝑒𝓁𝒹 𝒶𝓃 𝑒𝓍𝒸𝓊𝓈𝑒 𝒻𝑜𝓇 𝒷𝓇𝑒𝒶𝒸𝒽𝑒𝓈 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓅𝑒𝒶𝒸𝑒, 𝓃𝒶𝓎 𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓃 𝒻𝑜𝓇 𝒽𝑜𝓂𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒹𝑒 𝒾𝓉𝓈𝑒𝓁𝒻: 𝒷𝓊𝓉 𝒸𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝓂𝓊𝓈𝓉 𝒷𝑒 𝓉𝒶𝓀𝑒𝓃, 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝒾𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓃𝒸𝑒 𝒹𝑜𝑒𝓈 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝑒𝓍𝒸𝑒𝑒𝒹 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒷𝑜𝓊𝓃𝒹𝓈 𝑜𝒻 𝓂𝑒𝓇𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝒻𝑒𝓃𝒸𝑒 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃; 𝒻𝑜𝓇 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝒻𝑒𝓃𝒹𝑒𝓇 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝒽𝒾𝓂𝓈𝑒𝓁𝒻 𝒷𝑒𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑒 𝒶𝓃 𝒶𝑔𝑔𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓈𝑜𝓇.
William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book III; 1768.
-
Exactly 😉
Omitted meme
Online arguments changed my whole belief system. It’s just that I was always a quiet observer. We are (almost) never changing the minds of the one we’re communicating with on social media… they can’t while being on the spot and too defensive. It’s always the people scrolling by and quietly reading whose gears start turning. Like mine did 🤗
I love discussion though ( ❤️❤️❤️❤️), and some don't see a difference between argument and discussion because they never learned how to discuss and bounce ideas around without getting angry or offended.
...or feel personally attacked because they identify with the ideas they hold that are being questioned.
And I don't underestimate the ability to plant a seed.
Many times I have come to understand an idea I immediately rejected in my 20s. But it's been there rattling around in my brain all them years, lol.
But yes, I definitely have no illusions of changing anyone's mind, just like planting seeds and knowing I will never see any of the tree that might grow.
I’ve had people tell me to stop wasting time and relentlessly try telling me I’m “never going to change anyone’s mind.” Those people are projecting their unwillingness and inability to ever budge their way of thinking. I’ve watched so many people drastically change in 3 years. It’s never one instance or person who changes that for someone. It’s always a process with many factors coming in all directions. Just keep dropping little seeds wherever you can. ❤️
yes, many of the things I have learned I actually learned by researching a meme to see if it was correct, or to learn more, or to even try to disprove it, 😆
I love discussion, too. Which is why I loved college. My favorite courses in college were Argument and Essay, Ethics, and all anthropology courses. I liked history too, especially Art History. You can learn a lot about a culture or era through their art and architecture.
But I digress. It's fine to have whatever belief system you want, it's when you try to blend belief with politics that it's not ok. Separation of church and state happened in the USA for a reason, and it's a constant fight to keep it that way (The Republican party would have us all singing hymns if they had their druthers). And when a belief system requires 100% investment from the human population to work politically, well, it will never work. That tree will NEVER grow, before or after we are gone.
We have issues that need to be solved. The major issues are caused by years of unchecked capitalism and paid lobbyists, dark money and powerful political contributors like the NRA. We need to elect more people like Bernie Sanders, Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, etc who are pushing to change laws so that politicians cannot take dark money contributions or accept corporate payoffs. I keep telling you, money (the ultra rich) are the root of all evil. Bernie has been fighting the good fight for years and I love him for that. Cortez is picking up where he left off, but I do not believe she will be as effective as Bernie, for the sad fact that she is a woman in a man's world.
But that's neither here nor there, if they are all going. Take it all away and what do we have? If you know your history, you know that when a nation loses their government, they go to war. Civil war, extremist groups, mob groups, gangs, and inter-county war always occur. Always. If you want to plunge a country into famine and war, destabilize their government. Works every time. And there is no reason to believe that we would be any different. In fact, we would be the prize of all prizes. And we are within nuclear striking distance of Russia, who has already been planning a Bering Strait bridge for years.
I don't want to die in a war, do you? I don't want my kids to die in a war, do you? Especially a purposeless, senseless war. And I feel like every time I bring up "war", I see this: 🙈🙈🙈 🙉🙉🙉
Probably the biggest problem this country has right now is gun violence. There have been more mass shootings than days in the year. And mass shootings require 4 or more victims, so that's not even counting the people who only killed 3 people (underachievers, right?). Gunshot is the number one cause of death for American children. Not car accidents, not drowning, not illness. Gunshot. But your solution is more guns, arm everyone. As one of the most armed, yet least regulated, populations on the planet, how does that seem to be working out for us? 🤔
I'll tell you. That ranks us as number 129 out of 163 countries on the "safest country" list. Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Honduras, Uganda, and Egypt score safer than the USA.
So yeah, I (and most people) will never support the society that you need 100% support in order to form.
It's fine to promote natural law, or the golden rule, or whatever you want to call it. Just keep it out of politics.
well, I am on my phone at the moment, hanging out with hubby at the American Legion while he gets help with his computer 💻. Yay, it came home 😁, thanks sis and thanks to Amie too.
So hoping I can get this posted before it resets and erases my reply.
The issue with politics is politics. Anarchy is not politics, or even a system, and I stick with the word "anarchy" because it is unmistakably not politics. Everything else has been hijacked by politics, even "voluntarism" is being hijacked. Which "voluntary" is diametrically opposite of "politics," but it didn't stop them from twisting it into a political agenda.
I am not trying to put anarchy into politics. Anarchy is no politics at all. Completely voluntary society serviced by the private market.
Anarchy is what already exists, despite government trying to subvert natural order. In fact, the high incidence of issues with violence is due to government trying to subvert natural law.
Guns have nothing to do with the "gun violence" you are concerned about (I don't see a difference between violence with one tool or another and more people are killed by fists). Society has mostly been disarmed, both literally and mentally. Those who are not, are few and far between. Most have been conditioned to rely on "law enforcement" for their security, which is one of the biggest lies of government. They can not protect you.
The violence is due to the prevelence and indoctrination into moral relativism.
War is the health of the state. People don't want to go to war, government does.
And an anarchist society is far more impervious to war, (especially the US with the prevelence of arms) because they don't recognize the authority of the any self proclaimed ruler.
There's been several anarchist societies in history. The length of such societies are so long that it dwarfs the reign of societies under a government.
They are only "conquered" by being tricked into accepting rulership.
One of the best recorded societies was in Iceland before they were tricked into accepting the Norwegian King. You can read about it in the icelandic chronicles.
Another society was the Hebrews before 1Samuel in the bible (I see a lot of history documentaries on the old societies in the bible too, but they are not showing anything along the lines of how the society functioned before rule of kings).
Those are two just off the top of my head, and one has been hiding in plain sight in the most common book in the US.
yay! That was way faster than I thought it would be!
How are you going to eliminate politics in a political world? Seriously, how? It would be disastrous on every front. Even simple things like trading with another country would be disrupted. The "free market" is political, and if you don't understand that, then you need to study econ for a minute.
"The high incidence of issues with violence is due to government trying to subvert natural law." No, it isn't . There is absolutely no evidence that that is a true statement, and I can't even come up with any kind of logical reason why that WOULD be true. It sounds like a hypothesis with no foundation and no merit. The "high issues of violence" is due to humans being human. Impulsive, stupid, and armed. And, often poor. More equitable societies experience less violence. In fact, one of the best indicators of where one will see less violence is when there is relative income stability and less income disparity. Also, societies where firearms are regulated are less violent. You can twist and turn and try to spin statistics to paint whatever picture you want, but that is a fact. There is even a psychological reason for it: basically, it's easier/less personal to kill with a gun, so that line is so much easier to step over. Most people don't have it in them to stab or strangle or beat someone to death, but pulling a trigger is nearly nothing. Just a muscle twitch. I have a story I can tell you, but it will have to be private, to illustrate exactly what I mean.
Don't get your info from the NRA, btw, they spin everything to (surprise surprise!) make guns look like God. I am aware of the report you are referring to, but remember they were talking about "long guns", not just "Guns". Handguns are the number one weapon of choice for murder, by a long shot (no pun intended). I will post a screen shot.
So what, you're just gonna tell Putin "we don't recognize your authority" and he's gonna say "oh. Ok."? That right there, without considering ANYTHING ELSE we have EVER talked about, tells me *DANGER DANGER*, and I find it a little scary that you don't have the same reaction. How do you just "not recognize" the authority of an atomic bomb? I mean, we'll be vaporized, so it doesn't matter at that point, but if you survive, what do you do? And do you even feel a little bad for all the lives lost because you wanted your own version of a political system (it's all politics, like it or not)?
Some chart of murders by method.
11,476 guns total. In case you were wondering. Compared to 461 "hands fists feet".
oh but add another 152 for shotguns. Didn't see that.
https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid0v6Ggqjeu48Lg8uBK6YCHgAULFVMFavRaybHxMdZKaAKJUx4BC9DjjykbxrEKYpQ3l
-
I'm going to make this short because it's late and I'm heading to bed.
The way you change anything to do with gov is understanding it is all based on the illusion of authority.
Once enough understand that it will crumble under it's own weight. No force would be needed, unless the gov, smelling their own demise, starts something.
Government has no power in and of itself. It's us that gives it power by believing that it has legitimate authority. Government needs us, we don't need government.
I don't like the NRA, they are the worst political organization when it comes to passing gun control laws.
When I *used to* follow political stuff, I liked JPFO and GOA.
And the concept of using government to control what everyone else is doing works both ways.
Stephen couldn't wrap his head around it being none of his business about abortions and you can't seem to understand it's none of your business who acquires what tools or weapons...
You mention, "I don't like the NRA, they are the worst political organization when it comes to passing gun control laws."
In addition, the NRA is a huge donator to the GOP! The GOP has been the one actually passing anti-gun laws since way back (Reagan, Trump, etc.).
like I've said before, that's all great philosophy. But then there is the real world.
War is real. Bombs are real. Genocide is real. Anthrax is real. We didn't imagine it, it all actually happened.
It isn't legal for every day citizens to own military grade weapons for a reason. They are illegal, and hardly anyone has them. Because they are illegal. It takes a lot of money and a lot of connections to obtain those weapons, and that is something that the average Joe doesn't have. So no, "if you make guns illegal people will just get them illegally" isn't true. Because if it was, you wouldn't care if they were made illegal. Right?
I know the NRA is a huge donor to the GOP, that's my point. They suck. Guns suck. The GOP sucks. And no, they don't want gun legislation. They only allow the bare minimum and don't even want simple things like background checks or waiting periods. They have been VERY effective in preventing gun control measures from going through, even when faced with the parents of the children who died in Sandy Hook. They don't care, at all, about anything except $$$.
Okay, let me make this as pointed as possible.
1. State = war; Government = war; King = war; Democracy = war; Republic = war.
2. All war is because the many obey some other people who have everyone believing that their authority is legitimate, i.e. those who have the magical title of "government."
3. War is the life blood of government. They will create "false flags" to create support from the many so they can go to war.
The very thing you're championing as the prevention of war is the creator of war.
As for weapons, I'm not going to go into detail, but yes, you can.
And you are forgetting (if you ever knew) what happened in societies where only the government had/has weapons.
nah. Since the end of the second world war, war has steadily declined over the years. But why? Shouldn't we have MORE war, with rapidly expanding human populations and dwindling land and resources? 🤔 Why has war become, for lack of a better term, passée?
I can tell you why if you want, but I think it would be good for you read up on it yourself. Hint: it isn't because societies gave up government.
"Yes you can" but it's really damn difficult and rare. And that's the point.
It is simplistic and wrong to suggest that governments who have strict gun laws are, what, planning on annihilating the population? It's simply wrong. Nazi Germany is not the end point of any and all government regulation, and people need to stop calling everything "Nazi Germany" as a knee jerk reaction when they don't like something. Read the book "Human Smoke" if you want to understand the perfect storm that led to the holocaust. And also, understand that the holocaust is not the same thing as WWII.
Japan has nearly zero gun crime and some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Switzerland, etc have varying degrees of gun ownership laws and varying degrees of success keeping gun violence low. ALL of them are doing a drastically better job than the USA, of course.
You are ASKING for war, and you don't even know it.
How war has been diminished in any way, would be because of the protest of people. Think Hippies and flower power 😁
Governments can't go to war without the support of their people. That's why they put out all this hoopla over the news media so the people get all irate over what may or may not be happening so they support declaring war.
And referencing only Nazi Germany shows you have very little knowledge of the vast amount of democide done by many governments, either very soon or a few decades, after disarming the population. Over 260 million just in the past century alone.
If you are going to reference such countries like the UK and Australia for the success of gun control, you are dismissing the huge increase in violence after being disarmed. You also have missed that there are countries that have more freedom with firearms than the US and they are very well "behaved" with very low violent crime. There were several countries, along with some of the ones you mentioned above, like NZ and Switzerland as having low violence, but had more lax gun laws than the US at the time I was looking into it. If their laws are now stricter than the US, I would say their low violence is probably a hold over from before the laws were passed and isn't due to the stricter gun laws.
If you are only going to reference the US (which, IMO, is the best reference for the US) the cities with the strictest gun control are the worst when it comes to violence.
In fact, If you remove the most violent cities with the *strictest gun control laws,* the US is one of the least violent countries.
Omitted meme
-
OP (https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid02BtsVHVWF2JAEupTkqshTaZ46yENbAmp956w8u7dqLjMCjZ6yEhW6PwoUsbjkv9p9l)
The words of the meme:If you personally advocate that I be caged if I don't pay for whatever "government things you want" please don't pretend to be tolerant, or non-violent, or enlightened, or compassionate.
You forgot to tag SH.
Dale Eastman and yet, she isn't in a cage. 🤷🏼♀️
Connecting the dots is not your strong point, is it?
Dale Eastman I'd say it's not yours. 😉
Would it be fair to say you and I don't have very high opinions of each other?
I don't have enough information about you to determine what I think about you as a *whole*. However, I do believe that you have low self esteem, which reflects itself in your needing to control everything and everyone around you. You display narcissistic tendencies, exemplified by your need to structure conversations exactly the way you want them to go, and you believe that you are "above the law", while at the same time expecting others to hold to YOUR definition of discourse rules. In other words, rules don't apply, unless YOU make them. You believe that you have information that no one else has, that you somehow have tapped into some source of information that no one else or few others can, and that makes you feel special. You use nebulous arguments purposefully as it makes gaslighting easier later on, which is your main form of argument.
So, in essence, my "opinion" of you, while limited, is that of a person who compensates for lack of esteem by going full blown narcissist/control freak on those around him.
But I'm sure that you have other traits that make you very likeable. Probably even charming.
➽ I don't have enough information about you to determine what I think about you as a *whole*.
I must admit I don't have enough information about you to honestly support my projections and subsequent opinions about you. Not fair to you. I do gauge you by my interactions of others who have presented the same stuff as you.
In admitting that, I recognize the same with you as you dismiss what you think I believe, painting me with the same broad brush you've painted your sister and many other liberty loving folks. You have refused to understand my conclusions.
Regardless, I do wish to understand what you think, what you believe, and why you present the things you present.
➽ So, in essence, my "opinion" of you, while limited, is that of a person who compensates for lack of esteem by going full blown narcissist/control freak on those around him.
Yeah... I dunno how to make this less snarky than it is, nor do I know if I want to.
Looking in the mirror when you wrote that?
Why are you calling me by your maiden name?
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
And Pot-Kettle-Black.
➽ You display narcissistic tendencies, exemplified by your need to structure conversations exactly the way you want them to go,
You display narcissistic tendencies, exemplified by your need to structure conversations exactly the way you want them to go, which is to have me not question your BS when you present it.
Knowing what I have learned about you from you:
𝟙 I will make your interaction with me very simple.
𝟚 I know you are choosing to be willfully ignorant.
𝟛 I know that your claim that discussion with me is "𝒶𝓃 𝑒𝓃𝑜𝓇𝓂𝑜𝓊𝓈 𝓌𝒶𝓈𝓉𝑒 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝒾𝓂𝑒" is your admission of choosing to be willfully ignorant.
𝟜 Denying that you are choosing to be willfully ignorant does not matter as such claim will not erase your willful failure to actually cogitate and discuss the points I have placed in front of you.
𝟝 In acknowledgement of your valid awareness that such discussions do, in fact and deed, consume copious amounts of time: I am numbering each point.
𝟞 My intent is to make your interaction with me less time consuming for you.
𝟟 To this end, I assume you can see the extra time I have already put into creating this post.
𝟠 Numbered points not challenged can be ignored to signify agreement.
𝟡 Points to be challenged can be identified by number.
𝟙𝟘 Numbered points challenged will be deemed copied and pasted in the challenging comment.
x (https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid02BtsVHVWF2JAEupTkqshTaZ46yENbAmp956w8u7dqLjMCjZ6yEhW6PwoUsbjkv9p9l?comment_id=567373861928715&reply_comment_id=1295681754367177)
Dale Eastman well then, thanks for proving me correct, I guess.
Good luck with your world view.
Thank you for admitting that you are being willfully ignorant.
𝟙𝟙 You have presented yourself as "PRO"- government multiple times.
𝟙𝟚 Therefore my question, 𝒟𝑜𝑒𝓈 𝑔𝑜𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓃𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝒽𝒶𝓋𝑒 𝒶 𝓇𝒾𝑔𝒽𝓉 𝓉𝑜 𝓇𝓊𝓁𝑒?, is a valid question to ask you.
𝟙𝟛 You and I have agreed that rights, being a mental construct, don't really exist.
𝟙𝟜 From there it follows: Government simply can NOT have a 𝓇𝒾𝑔𝒽𝓉 𝓉𝑜 𝓇𝓊𝓁𝑒.
𝟙𝟝 If government does not have a 𝓇𝒾𝑔𝒽𝓉 𝓉𝑜 𝓇𝓊𝓁𝑒, then what other things does government not have a right to do?
you need to learn the difference between someone disagreeing with you, and someone "refusing to understand" you. I understand you perfectly. I just know that you are wrong.
You also need to understand that you have nothing new to offer. Nothing new to teach. Refusing to allow oneself to be repeatedly assaulted by the same tired claims ad nauseam is not "willful ignorance". However, imagining that oneself is some type of visionary, who has the answer to the world's problems, certainly could fall under the chapter on Willful Ignorance, right after the chapter on Cult Leader Personality Traits.
I don't care what you believe, I don't care what you think of me, and I have no desire to prove my beliefs to you. We really and truly have nothing to talk about.
-
I am breaking my reply into multi parts based upon content.
➽ I understand you perfectly. I just know that you are wrong.
Now that's funny.
For a few reasons.
First is your pretentious presumption that you understand me perfectly. That you have no clue is observed with every wrong claim you've made in assuming my personality and character traits.
That you just know I am wrong is funny as well. You have spent more time interacting with me saying and proving NOTHING then you have in actually addressing specific points and topics and proving what you "just know". To wit: Proving I am wrong on specific points.
➽ you need to learn the difference between someone disagreeing with you,
Lemme see if I can synergize these two points so even you can understand. I numbered a bunch of points knowing that you do not agree with me. I did that so that you could easily identify a point to <snarky> educate </snarky> me that I am wrong (in your mind) about. Your history in your interactions with my shows you have spent more time pushing that I am wrong than you have proving your claim that I am (in your mind) wrong about something. To include your squirming straw man words I've addressed below.
I do not claim to understand you perfectly. Using your methodology and logic I could make the same claim about you. I won't because I understand my bias. And I have become truly curious about what you think and more importantly "Why?"
➽ You also need to understand that you have nothing new to offer. Nothing new to teach.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
I am going to prove that claim of yours wrong in my 204 𝔀𝓸𝓻𝓭𝓼 post by showing that you don't know what you don't know by showing just one thing you don't know. I have other points as well.
➽ Refusing to allow oneself to be repeatedly assaulted by the same tired claims ad nauseam is not "willful ignorance".
I'm sure you believe your own straw man claims. Just for the record: 𝒜 𝓈𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓌 𝓂𝒶𝓃 𝒻𝒶𝓁𝓁𝒶𝒸𝓎 (𝓈𝑜𝓂𝑒𝓉𝒾𝓂𝑒𝓈 𝓌𝓇𝒾𝓉𝓉𝑒𝓃 𝒶𝓈 𝓈𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓌𝓂𝒶𝓃) 𝒾𝓈 𝒶 𝒻𝑜𝓇𝓂 𝑜𝒻 𝒶𝓇𝑔𝓊𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝒶𝓃 𝒾𝓃𝒻𝑜𝓇𝓂𝒶𝓁 𝒻𝒶𝓁𝓁𝒶𝒸𝓎 𝑜𝒻 𝒽𝒶𝓋𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒾𝓂𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓈𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝑜𝒻 𝓇𝑒𝒻𝓊𝓉𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒶𝓃 𝒶𝓇𝑔𝓊𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉, 𝓌𝒽𝑒𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓈 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓁 𝓈𝓊𝒷𝒿𝑒𝒸𝓉 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒶𝓇𝑔𝓊𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝓌𝒶𝓈 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒶𝒹𝒹𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓈𝑒𝒹 𝑜𝓇 𝓇𝑒𝒻𝓊𝓉𝑒𝒹, 𝒷𝓊𝓉 𝒾𝓃𝓈𝓉𝑒𝒶𝒹 𝓇𝑒𝓅𝓁𝒶𝒸𝑒𝒹 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽 𝒶 𝒻𝒶𝓁𝓈𝑒 𝑜𝓃𝑒.
"Same tired claims." How would you know if I was presenting the "same tired claims" when you refuse to look. See if you can figure out what I just said and implied about you with these three words: 𝓮𝓹𝓹𝓾𝓻 𝓼𝓲 𝓶𝓾𝓸𝓿𝓮.
➽ However, imagining that oneself is some type of visionary, who has the answer to the world's problems, certainly could fall under the chapter on Willful Ignorance, right after the chapter on Cult Leader Personality Traits.
Compared to you and your willful ignorance, I am some type of visionary. Visionary in that I can see what you have been brainwashed to not see. Visionary enough that I can see that you do not see the actual root causes of the world's problems.
➽ We really and truly have nothing to talk about.
Nescient means not knowing. Refusing to look upon being apprised of one's nescience is a choice. Refusing to look is willful ignorance. Choosing willful ignorance is choosing to be an ignoramus. Choosing willful ignorance is the act of a coward.
204 𝔀𝓸𝓻𝓭𝓼 post.
I have KISSed years of reading the actual income tax statures in Title 26 USC; Subtitle A, Subtitle C; (Chapter 24); Subtitle F; diverse other statutes; and the 26 CFR regulations thereunder to come to an understanding of the actual nature of the U.S. Federal trillion dollar a year tax fraud into these 204 words:
[ 204--204--204--204--204--204 ]
Dear IRS,
SCOTUS has said:
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." GOULD v. GOULD, 245 U.S. 151 (1917).
SCOTUS has said:
... [T]he well-settled rule ... the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid... SPRECKELS SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MCCLAIN, 192 U.S. 397 (1904)
SCOTUS has said:
If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627 (1886)
What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?
[/ 204--204--204--204--204--204 ]
𝐹𝑒𝒹𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓁 𝑅𝓊𝓁𝑒𝓈 𝑜𝒻 𝐸𝓋𝒾𝒹𝑒𝓃𝒸𝑒 › 𝒜𝑅𝒯𝐼𝒞𝐿𝐸 𝒱𝐼. 𝒲𝐼𝒯𝒩𝐸𝒮𝒮𝐸𝒮 › 𝑅𝓊𝓁𝑒 𝟨𝟢𝟤. 𝒩𝑒𝑒𝒹 𝒻𝑜𝓇 𝒫𝑒𝓇𝓈𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓁 𝒦𝓃𝑜𝓌𝓁𝑒𝒹𝑔𝑒
𝒜 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝓃𝑒𝓈𝓈 𝓂𝒶𝓎 𝓉𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒾𝒻𝓎 𝓉𝑜 𝒶 𝓂𝒶𝓉𝓉𝑒𝓇 𝑜𝓃𝓁𝓎 𝒾𝒻 𝑒𝓋𝒾𝒹𝑒𝓃𝒸𝑒 𝒾𝓈 𝒾𝓃𝓉𝓇𝑜𝒹𝓊𝒸𝑒𝒹 𝓈𝓊𝒻𝒻𝒾𝒸𝒾𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝓉𝑜 𝓈𝓊𝓅𝓅𝑜𝓇𝓉 𝒶 𝒻𝒾𝓃𝒹𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝓃𝑒𝓈𝓈 𝒽𝒶𝓈 𝓅𝑒𝓇𝓈𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓁 𝓀𝓃𝑜𝓌𝓁𝑒𝒹𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓂𝒶𝓉𝓉𝑒𝓇. 𝐸𝓋𝒾𝒹𝑒𝓃𝒸𝑒 𝓉𝑜 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓋𝑒 𝓅𝑒𝓇𝓈𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓁 𝓀𝓃𝑜𝓌𝓁𝑒𝒹𝑔𝑒 𝓂𝒶𝓎 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝒾𝓈𝓉 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝓃𝑒𝓈𝓈’𝓈 𝑜𝓌𝓃 𝓉𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓂𝑜𝓃𝓎. 𝒯𝒽𝒾𝓈 𝓇𝓊𝓁𝑒 𝒹𝑜𝑒𝓈 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒶𝓅𝓅𝓁𝓎 𝓉𝑜 𝒶 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝓃𝑒𝓈𝓈’𝓈 𝑒𝓍𝓅𝑒𝓇𝓉 𝓉𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓂𝑜𝓃𝓎 𝓊𝓃𝒹𝑒𝓇 𝑅𝓊𝓁𝑒 𝟩𝟢𝟥.
I have FRE #602 first hand knowledge that the IRS ignored its own Mission Statement:
Provide America’s taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all.
I have FRE #602 first hand knowledge that the IRS ignored its own Taxpayer Correspondence Policy Statement:
1.2.21.1.3 (Approved 03-14-1991)
Policy Statement 21-3 (Formerly P-6-12)
1. Timeliness and Quality of Taxpayer Correspondence
2. The Service will issue quality responses to all taxpayer correspondence.
3. Taxpayer correspondence is defined as all written communication from a taxpayer or his/her representative, excluding tax returns, whether solicited or unsolicited. This includes taxpayer requests for information, as well as that which may accompany a tax return; responses to IRS requests for information; and annotated notice responses.
4. A quality response is timely, accurate, professional in tone, responsive to taxpayer needs (i.e., resolves all issues without further contact).
So, specifically in this case, I know stuff you do not know.
And with my knowledge just shown, plus my experiences with the IRS, I can prove that you have been LIED TO by the "GOVERNMENT" you appear to me to be worshiping like a deity.
I know how the above words look to religious government boot lickers.
What you don't know about me is that I am NEVER unaware of the silent readers observing the discussion. I am never unaware of persons like the one that posted this in that other thread. TB on Jan 24 @ 07:14 posted:
Online arguments changed my whole belief system. It’s just that I was always a quiet observer. We are (almost) never changing the minds of the one we’re communicating with on social media… they can’t while being on the spot and too defensive. It’s always the people scrolling by and quietly reading whose gears start turning. Like mine did 🤗
➽ I just know that you are wrong.
Not in the case of this specific post.
I would be happy to provide DOTGOV links to the appropriate laws. But I know you are a willfully ignorant coward that believes (in your own mind) that you are superior to me.
➽ You also need to understand that you have nothing new to offer. Nothing new to teach.
Oh... So you've read the tax laws have you?
Let me preempt the bullshit I know you would post if not for this pair of preemption sentences:
Only fools would "believe" something without verifying it for themselves.
And if you believe what tax "experts" assert without verifying it for yourself, then you are a fool.
Repeating the points I numbered for your convenience...
Which numbered points do you specifically deny?
𝟙𝟙 You have presented yourself as "PRO"- government multiple times.
𝟙𝟚 Therefore my question, 𝒟𝑜𝑒𝓈 𝑔𝑜𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓃𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝒽𝒶𝓋𝑒 𝒶 𝓇𝒾𝑔𝒽𝓉 𝓉𝑜 𝓇𝓊𝓁𝑒?, is a valid question to ask you.
𝟙𝟛 You and I have agreed that rights, being a mental construct, don't really exist.
𝟙𝟜 From there it follows: Government simply can NOT have a 𝓇𝒾𝑔𝒽𝓉 𝓉𝑜 𝓇𝓊𝓁𝑒.
𝟙𝟝 If government does not have a 𝓇𝒾𝑔𝒽𝓉 𝓉𝑜 𝓇𝓊𝓁𝑒, then what other things does government not have a right to do?
I don't have to prove anything to you. 🤷🏼♀️ And you're entitled to your beliefs because hey, IT'S A FREE COUNTY. Move on and get a life dude. You're letting me live rent free in your head, and trust me, I have no interest in being there.
Your own words right back at you:
➽ I just know that you are wrong.
I can prove you're wrong. I can prove I'm right.
You're a coward.
I am NEVER unaware of the silent readers observing the discussion.
You're a highly intelligent, highly educated, useful idiot.
I have spent more time with your errant words than I would have if you and I just happened across one another in the wild, wild, world of the internet (www). The fact that you disrespect your own sister as you publicly do...
Your sister understands and is for liberty. She just needs to get better at calling you out on your ignorant, willful stupidity.
x (https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid07sGmogJgMN8hJhWEjWCGJkJEofksW6yrc4QQhJGjZsF4iWoXNmENSvLzhXvWv1ZJl?comment_id=567373861928715&reply_comment_id=641350341126457)
-
If taking 100% of someone's labour and free will is slavery, at what percentage is it NOT slavery...?
Sara Hiller, Care to supply an answer?
cc: Debra Osborn, for the lulz.
Dale Eastman attempting to compare paying taxes (or whatever your current perceived injustices are) in America to the disgusting atrocities committed against black people in America is a pretty perfect example of white fragility. I'm not interested in your bombastic rhetoric.
Read the book Master Slave Husband Wife, and then talk to me about "percentages".
Oh... So you're not ghosting me.
Yet again, you are being too cowardly to answer a straight forward question with a straight answer.
In view of your spew, I see I need to break it down further for you.
Is taking 100% of someone's labor and free will slavery?
Take your time in posting your one word answer. I'll not be back on line until later today.
; (https://www.facebook.com/brett.mcquigg.9/posts/pfbid036sHJLZJRt32hwdw5XiwMAh2SnvXpEAc5iLsEwjKDT6KiXsWphJBBHbL7tLfutu2jl?comment_id=621761906380048&reply_comment_id=593768022589341)
Dale Eastman it appears that you don't understand nuance and intention. You also don't understand privilege and hijacking hardship. Your numbers game is a red herring, completely irrelevant. Completely. When you get over that reality, go read and learn to recognize what enslaved people really look like. Claiming that we are all currently "slaves" is so abhorrent and disrespectful to people who have lived through (or died within) real shackles.
Whatever you're mad about, you can keep being mad about, but find a new name for it and stop calling it "slavery". You sound insensitive and oblivious.
So... You're telling me that you are too stupid to answer this simple question:
Is taking 100% of someone's labor and free will slavery?
; (https://www.facebook.com/brett.mcquigg.9/posts/pfbid036sHJLZJRt32hwdw5XiwMAh2SnvXpEAc5iLsEwjKDT6KiXsWphJBBHbL7tLfutu2jl?comment_id=621761906380048&reply_comment_id=2103986683129332)
Dale Eastman I can easily answer that question, and so can you. But that's not the point. You're clearly attempting to lure me into a debate, the conclusion of which you probably believe to be profound. The problem is, I've heard this argument before, and it is still based on a false premise. It is still ludicrous. It still reeks of slippery slope logic. It is still demonstrably wrong.
Stop trying to play a numbers game. Use your human eyes and look at enslaved people. The horrors of what they have gone through is an entirely different world from what you and I can ever possibly know. "You may have been 100% oppressed, but I'm 1% oppressed!" is not the powerful argument you think it is.
-
➽ I've heard this argument before
You've heard SOME argument from someone or several someones before. But you didn't hear it from me. You just implied you can read my mind so you just implied you know my argument.
𝒜𝓃 𝒶𝓇𝑔𝓊𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝒾𝓈 𝒶 𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓉𝑒𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝑜𝓇 𝑔𝓇𝑜𝓊𝓅 𝑜𝒻 𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓉𝑒𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝓈 𝒸𝒶𝓁𝓁𝑒𝒹 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓂𝒾𝓈𝑒𝓈 𝒾𝓃𝓉𝑒𝓃𝒹𝑒𝒹 𝓉𝑜 𝒹𝑒𝓉𝑒𝓇𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑒 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝑔𝓇𝑒𝑒 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝓇𝓊𝓉𝒽 𝑜𝓇 𝒶𝒸𝒸𝑒𝓅𝓉𝒶𝒷𝒾𝓁𝒾𝓉𝓎 𝑜𝒻 𝒶𝓃𝑜𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇 𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓉𝑒𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝒸𝒶𝓁𝓁𝑒𝒹 𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝒸𝓁𝓊𝓈𝒾𝑜𝓃.
➽ I've heard this argument before, and it is still based on a false premise.
What you just stated is merely your OPINION without any proof to back your claim.
As a college educated person, I assumed (with the attendant risks) that you know what Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur actually means.
Before you can claim my conclusions and supporting arguments are based on a false premise, you must FIRST actually know MY conclusions and supporting arguments. You do not.
I told you previously, when I am presented with bullshit, I challenge the bullshit. Your bullshit has just been challenged... Again.
➽ It [my conclusion and supporting argument] is still ludicrous. It [my conclusion and supporting argument] still reeks of slippery slope logic. It [my conclusion and supporting argument] is still demonstrably wrong.
You don't have any clue as to what my conclusions and supporting arguments are. Proof of this is your ongoing failure / refusal to even articulate what my my conclusions and supporting arguments are. You are not even able to articulate what you erroneously believe are my conclusions and supporting arguments.
You've just presented your conclusions (more like assumptions and made up shit) about my conclusions, which at this time is merely your unsupported opinion.
If I am "demonstrably wrong", then you should be able to easily demonstrate where I am wrong.
You have had an open and ongoing invitation to actually prove my error based upon actual merits of the arguments supporting my conclusions. You have continually declined to actually prove me wrong.
➽ You're clearly attempting to lure me into a debate, the conclusion of which you probably believe to be profound.
You are actually correct on the first part.
Your assumption/ opinion in the second part is a null argument. What I believe about my conclusion does not matter. Either I am correct or I am not.
What matters is your ongoing failure - refusal to address and refute my supporting arguments thereby actually proving me wrong.
➽ I can easily answer that question
You could easily answer many of the questions I asked you. You refuse to do so, so that opens the door for me to publicly speculate as to why.
If someone's answers are on the record, their contradictions of their own words are in plain sight. With their words in plain sight, they can not claim "You didn't understand what I wrote." With their words in plain sight, statements needing clarification can be highlighted and questioned. This is important when dealing with obfuscation, legerdemain, lies, and failure to succinctly state a position (deliberately or by simple cloudy thinking).
From the record, my questions for clarification and understanding on one single subject: Slavery.
Dec 21 @ 09:27: Are you for liberty or are you for slavery?
Dec 21 @ 1011: Are you for slavery?
Jan 9 @ 10:14: What do you 𝓫𝓮𝓵𝓲𝓮𝓿𝓮 slavery is?
Feb 2 @ 10:37: Is taking 100% of someone's labor and free will slavery?
Feb 2 @ 19:28: Is taking 100% of someone's labor and free will slavery?
Your answers:
Jan 9 @ 11:54: Slavery is forcing people to work without pay.
𝔸 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕚𝕤 𝕒 𝕙𝕦𝕞𝕒𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕖 𝕠𝕨𝕟𝕖𝕣'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝
Jan 9 @ 23:22:
No, I don't agree with that definition of slavery.
Your Jan 9 @ 23:22 post contradicted your Jan 9 @ 11:54 post.
You claimed that "forcing people to work without pay" does not 𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕕𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝.
I'll just end this here and keep my insults to myself.
' (https://www.facebook.com/brett.mcquigg.9/posts/pfbid022qgark6sDB9DNeifbATShxxnhmAbjnsyykcmZcLZJz6TUNSQCD6JRURpXiVwKNe3l?comment_id=621761906380048&reply_comment_id=743759047152681)
Dale Eastman it would be easier to refute your arguments if you would actually ever present an argument. 🤷🏼♀️ But see, you know that. That's why you don't present arguments. Ever. You just ask questions in an attempt to lead people through the convolutions and mental gymnastics necessary to arrive at your absurd world view. That way you can hide behind your veil of "you don't have any clue as to what my conclusions and supporting arguments are". But that's the way you like it. Maybe because you know that if you show your hand, I'll trump you. You have to remain obscure in order to retain any relevance. I see right through you and your tactics, and no, I still will not play into your game. As many others obviously have, sadly.
➽ if you would actually ever present an argument
English is not your native tongue, is it?
Arguments support conclusions. Here's my conclusion:
You contradicted yourself.
Here's my supporting arguments:
❶ On Jan 9 @ 11:54 you posted: Slavery is forcing people to work without pay.
❷ On Jan 9 @ 23:22: you posted: No, I don't agree with that definition of slavery.
❸ This is the definition of slavery that you denied: 𝔸 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕚𝕤 𝕒 𝕙𝕦𝕞𝕒𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕖 𝕠𝕨𝕟𝕖𝕣'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝
❹ Your Jan 9 @ 23:22 post contradicted your Jan 9 @ 11:54 post.
❺ You claimed that "forcing people to work without pay" does not 𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕕𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝.
. (https://www.facebook.com/brett.mcquigg.9/posts/pfbid022qgark6sDB9DNeifbATShxxnhmAbjnsyykcmZcLZJz6TUNSQCD6JRURpXiVwKNe3l?comment_id=621761906380048&reply_comment_id=581975290135162)
Dale Eastman Your five step attempt to create a scenario in which I "contradicted" myself is pretty transparently contrived. And irrelevant. You still have not presented an argument for your stance. You know, YOUR stance? You ever going to get to that? No? What is the point if you won't plainly state what you believe? Or do you just enjoy wasting people's time?
I think we are done here.
KAREN: Your conclusions are wrong.
DALE: What are my conclusions?
KAREN: Doesn't matter. They're wrong.
Was your name Karen Pretentious before it was Sara?
-
On Feb 3 @ 10:48 you wrote:
➽ Dale Eastman it would be easier to refute your arguments if you would actually ever present an argument.
I told you I challenge bullshit when bullshit is presented. That is exactly what I did in my Feb 3 15:36 post. I presented supporting arguments and a conclusion.
Therefore, your Feb 3 16:52 post must be your refutation of my specific and particular stance presented in my Feb 3 15:36 post.
So let's you and I examine your alleged refutation of my claim that you contradicted yourself.
Feb 3 16:52: ➽ Your five step attempt to create a scenario in which I "contradicted" myself is pretty transparently contrived.
So... Reading and comprehending English writing is not in your skill set?
➽ You still have not presented an argument for your stance. You know, YOUR stance?
I "know" you are publicly lying. I "know" you are publicly lying because you are lying to yourself.
➽ Your five step attempt to create a scenario in which I "contradicted" myself is pretty transparently contrived.
I'm sure that's what you "believe" because you have lied to yourself.
➽ Your five step attempt to create a scenario in which I "contradicted" myself is pretty transparently contrived.
Since you have proven to me, more than once, your inability to focus on multiple connected points, I have taken to numbering them.
➽ Your five step attempt to create a scenario in which I "contradicted" myself is pretty transparently contrived.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Your opinion without evidence is refuted the same way... I refute your opinion without evidence.
Regardless, I also told you Jan 30 11:01 I have become truly curious about what you think and more importantly "Why?"
If what you publicly proclaimed is the truth, that my claim of you contradicting yourself is pretty transparently contrived, then you should be able to prove your proclamation with evidence of my "contrivance".
There are ONLY five points.
❶ On Jan 9 @ 11:54 you posted: Slavery is forcing people to work without pay.
Admit or Deny.
❷ On Jan 9 @ 23:22: you posted: No, I don't agree with that definition of slavery.
Admit or Deny.
❸ This is the definition of slavery that you denied: 𝔸 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕚𝕤 𝕒 𝕙𝕦𝕞𝕒𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕖 𝕠𝕨𝕟𝕖𝕣'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝
Admit. Or deny with reason how I erred in thinking your claim in point 2 wasn't a denial of my words in point 3
❹ Your Jan 9 @ 23:22 post contradicted your Jan 9 @ 11:54 post.
Admit. Or deny with reason how your words in point 2 did not deny my words in point 3.
❺ You claimed that "forcing people to work without pay" does not 𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕕𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝.
Admit. Or deny with reason how "forcing people to work without pay" does not 𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕕𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝.
➽ What is the point if you won't plainly state what you believe?
What is the point if you won't plainly engage when I have specifically articulated and stated what I believe? That makes you the person wasting MY time. I've friends and family, who have insisted multiple times, that I am wasting my time dealing with you and your delusions. While I could agree, I don't. I am NEVER unaware of the silent readers observing the discussion. That is what makes interacting with you NOT a waste of my time.
➽ You still have not presented an argument for your stance. You know, YOUR stance?
One of my stances is: I am anti-slavery regardless of the form or the degree of slavery.
The concurrent stance is: You are not.
➽ I think we are done here.
Cowards often are when their bullshit is challenged.
On the other hand, Pretentious "𝒻𝓊𝓁𝓁 𝒷𝓁𝑜𝓌𝓃 𝓃𝒶𝓇𝒸𝒾𝓈𝓈𝒾𝓈𝓉/𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝑜𝓁 𝒻𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓀" Karens are not.
. (https://www.facebook.com/brett.mcquigg.9/posts/pfbid036h8J3R2h4Xa8VUM3nJ91FH7CPPpRukm38JGALgzPxSqAaFcuQVvvh4QEupuKZP7vl?comment_id=621761906380048&reply_comment_id=922344599038697)
Dale Eastman lol. You are off your rocker. Take your batshittery somewhere else.
Sara Hiller you need to come with me to "court" when I'm contesting registering my truck with the state and see how I'm treated by the slave trader in the black dress.
Frederick Douglas implied taxation and government was a more pernicious form of enslavement than chattel chains and whips. It gave one the illusion of freedom and choice where there is none.
You're either free or enslaved and arguing over who has it worse or which plantation is worse only serves the ruling class.
Sara Hiller - Isn't it a bit arrogant to tell the one who posed the question that they do not "understand the point." Maybe if you gave a straightfoward answer to the original question, Dale would then be able to explain HIS point to you. As I understand it, he is trying to point out the obvious - or at least what is obvious to most sane people...
that it is theft to take something without the owner's consent.
What is it when you take a BMW without the owner's consent? Larceny?
What is it when a person is sexually molested? Rape/assault? What is it when the government takes your home? Imminent domain. (Sounds almost civilized, doesn't it?) Of course, it's only OK if it is someone else's property.
Yes, I am prepared for your acerbic keyboard. Fire away.
BTW - last I checked, this is Dale's FB page. Telling him to '"take his ... somewhere else" is getting above yourself.
Sorry GS, I caused you to post an error.
You got the link to this excerpt of a longer running discussion with sh, do sister from my collection of shares to BM original post that I tagged sh in a reply thereunder.
Ms. Hiller has no clue... About many things. <shrug> Of which I will not be presenting just yet.
BM posted a comment card. (https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1548.0;attach=668)
Granny Smith did you miss where he tagged me to this page?
Brett McQuigg Douglass believed that the proper role of government was to protect individual rights and guarantee equality within the law, not to dispense favors to particular groups. I agree with much of what he believed, by the way. But understand his life and what he experienced under the law of that time. The atrocities committed by our government and the people must never happen again, and for this reason we need to keep the ability to right wrongs.
Sara Hiller yes, the ostensible purpose of government is to protect rights and property which is why I want you to come with me to court to see slavery never ended, it was just expanded to everyone. That entity continually violates my rights, treating me like a slave, trying to force me to give away title to my property.
Sara Hiller is this a government? What if I get the rest of the neighbors to sign it? Government is a criminal organization posing as a human rights organization. Always. The word government literally translates to mind control.
Granny Smith you seem to be unaware that this conversation has been going on for months, maybe longer. I have explained my stance time and again, while Dale's answer is always "not just yet" along with another question.
I was raised believing how you believe. I've debated natural law, anarchy, and libertarianism for many years. I really cannot understand why Dale is so adamant to convince me of something that I have made it clear, over and over again, that I do not agree with/believe in.
I do not know Dale. He likes to stalk me in conversations with my sister, and despite me asking him repeatedly to leave me alone, he continues to tag me into these conversations. My next step, I suppose, is to simply block him.
Attn all my liberty minded friends Ms. Hiller is VERY good at D⁶ - Dishonest attempts to Distract, Deflect, Divert, Disrupt, and/or Derail.
Please hold your tangents and stay focused on Hiller's refusal to answer straight forward questions about her delusional claims as asked in this post: https://www.facebook.com/brett.mcquigg.9/posts/pfbid036h8J3R2h4Xa8VUM3nJ91FH7CPPpRukm38JGALgzPxSqAaFcuQVvvh4QEupuKZP7vl?comment_id=621761906380048&reply_comment_id=922344599038697
➽ Dale Eastman lol. You are off your rocker. Take your batshittery somewhere else.
Yes, I'm sure that is your opinion.
Did you figure out Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur yet?
I'm still waiting for you to prove that my claim of you contradicting yourself is "𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓉𝓉𝓎 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓃𝓈𝓅𝒶𝓇𝑒𝓃𝓉𝓁𝓎 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝒹".
Brett McQuigg I'm not starting down this road yet again. It's like groundhog day.
Sara Hiller imagine how we feel when coercionists won't answer simple questions and instead recite the same dodges and talking points we've heard since we were kids. You say you've looked into this but that's hard to accept because it's pretty simple though it can be said a million ways. Only voluntary human interaction is moral. You can have your opinions, but truth and consent of the individual are objective and you advocate our consent be violated to support a ruling "authority" in hope it will give you what it wants by taking it from others through coercion. Feel free to block me as well because I'm still curious and learning over here and not settled into BS.
Dale Eastman have a good life, and leave me alone. This is the last time I'll ask.
Sara Hiller I'm still waiting for you to prove that my claim of you contradicting yourself is "𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓉𝓉𝓎 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓃𝓈𝓅𝒶𝓇𝑒𝓃𝓉𝓁𝓎 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝒹".
Sara Hiller why do you think the legal term registration as well as the Front page of the IRS website contain the term "voluntary" yet they use deceit and coercion to enforce them? Because they're liars and thieves and they need the herd to be dumb and immoral.
Brett McQuigg imagine if I stalked you and did nothing but ask you question after question for months on end, and never presented any argument of my own. Just question after question. Pretty annoying, right?
How hard is it to understand that I don't agree? To you, it seems that you are on the right side of things and I get that, because I was once there too. I also know that I can't convince you. Any of you. You would all have to come to a new conclusion on your own. So enjoy your life and I'll enjoy mine, and it won't bother either of us because hey, it's a free country (see what I did there?) and we are entitled to our own beliefs.
Sara Hiller I didn't know about any of that;
but don't pretend to take the higher ground or hide behind euphemisms. You're not entitled to violating others consent, even cowardly through the state. So be gone from us, we seek neither your counsel or arms, lick the boot that will eventually stomp on you.
Brett McQuigg cool. ✌️
➽ I didn't know about any of that
No Mr. McQuigg, you did not know that I've asked her questions for months on end. Nor do you know that she has refused to answer questions for months on end.
Red is her words, Black is mine, Blue is DB's. IIRC, you share green words with another.
https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1548.0
Ms. Lefty is a moral relativist. That is to say, she's immoral.
𝑀𝑜𝓇𝒶𝓁 𝓇𝑒𝓁𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓋𝒾𝓈𝓂 𝒾𝓈 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓋𝒾𝑒𝓌 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝓂𝑜𝓇𝒶𝓁 𝒿𝓊𝒹𝑔𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝓈 𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝓉𝓇𝓊𝑒 𝑜𝓇 𝒻𝒶𝓁𝓈𝑒 𝑜𝓃𝓁𝓎 𝓇𝑒𝓁𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓋𝑒 𝓉𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝓂𝑒 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝓉𝒾𝒸𝓊𝓁𝒶𝓇 𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓃𝒹𝓅𝑜𝒾𝓃𝓉 (𝒻𝑜𝓇 𝒾𝓃𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓃𝒸𝑒, 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝑜𝒻 𝒶 𝒸𝓊𝓁𝓉𝓊𝓇𝑒 𝑜𝓇 𝒶 𝒽𝒾𝓈𝓉𝑜𝓇𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓁 𝓅𝑒𝓇𝒾𝑜𝒹) 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝓃𝑜 𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓃𝒹𝓅𝑜𝒾𝓃𝓉 𝒾𝓈 𝓊𝓃𝒾𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓁𝓎 𝓅𝓇𝒾𝓋𝒾𝓁𝑒𝑔𝑒𝒹 𝑜𝓋𝑒𝓇 𝒶𝓁𝓁 𝑜𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇𝓈. 𝐼𝓉 𝒽𝒶𝓈 𝑜𝒻𝓉𝑒𝓃 𝒷𝑒𝑒𝓃 𝒶𝓈𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝒶𝓉𝑒𝒹 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽 𝑜𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇 𝒸𝓁𝒶𝒾𝓂𝓈 𝒶𝒷𝑜𝓊𝓉 𝓂𝑜𝓇𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓉𝓎: 𝓃𝑜𝓉𝒶𝒷𝓁𝓎, 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓈𝒾𝓈 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝒹𝒾𝒻𝒻𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝒸𝓊𝓁𝓉𝓊𝓇𝑒𝓈 𝑜𝒻𝓉𝑒𝓃 𝑒𝓍𝒽𝒾𝒷𝒾𝓉 𝓇𝒶𝒹𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓁𝓁𝓎 𝒹𝒾𝒻𝒻𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝓂𝑜𝓇𝒶𝓁 𝓋𝒶𝓁𝓊𝑒𝓈; 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓲𝓪𝓵 𝓽𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓪𝓻𝓮 𝓾𝓷𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓪𝓵 𝓶𝓸𝓻𝓪𝓵 𝓿𝓪𝓵𝓾𝓮𝓼 𝓼𝓱𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓫𝔂 𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻𝔂 𝓱𝓾𝓶𝓪𝓷 𝓼𝓸𝓬𝓲𝓮𝓽𝔂; 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒾𝓃𝓈𝒾𝓈𝓉𝑒𝓃𝒸𝑒 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝓌𝑒 𝓈𝒽𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓇𝑒𝒻𝓇𝒶𝒾𝓃 𝒻𝓇𝑜𝓂 𝓅𝒶𝓈𝓈𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓂𝑜𝓇𝒶𝓁 𝒿𝓊𝒹𝑔𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉𝓈 𝑜𝓃 𝒷𝑒𝓁𝒾𝑒𝒻𝓈 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓅𝓇𝒶𝒸𝓉𝒾𝒸𝑒𝓈 𝒸𝒽𝒶𝓇𝒶𝒸𝓉𝑒𝓇𝒾𝓈𝓉𝒾𝒸 𝑜𝒻 𝒸𝓊𝓁𝓉𝓊𝓇𝑒𝓈 𝑜𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓃 𝑜𝓊𝓇 𝑜𝓌𝓃.
Ms. Lefty is a utilitarian. That is to say, she's immoral.
𝒰𝓉𝒾𝓁𝒾𝓉𝒶𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓃𝒾𝓈𝓂 𝒾𝓈 𝑜𝓃𝑒 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒷𝑒𝓈𝓉 𝓀𝓃𝑜𝓌𝓃 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓂𝑜𝓈𝓉 𝒾𝓃𝒻𝓁𝓊𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒾𝒶𝓁 𝓂𝑜𝓇𝒶𝓁 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝑜𝓇𝒾𝑒𝓈. 𝐿𝒾𝓀𝑒 𝑜𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇 𝒻𝑜𝓇𝓂𝓈 𝑜𝒻 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝑒𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒾𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓈𝓂, 𝒾𝓉𝓈 𝒸𝑜𝓇𝑒 𝒾𝒹𝑒𝒶 𝒾𝓈 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝓌𝒽𝑒𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇 𝒶𝒸𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃𝓈 𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝓂𝑜𝓇𝒶𝓁𝓁𝓎 𝓇𝒾𝑔𝒽𝓉 𝑜𝓇 𝓌𝓇𝑜𝓃𝑔 𝒹𝑒𝓅𝑒𝓃𝒹𝓈 𝑜𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝒾𝓇 𝑒𝒻𝒻𝑒𝒸𝓉𝓈.
[...]
𝒯𝒽𝑒 𝓉𝒶𝓈𝓀 𝑜𝒻 𝒹𝑒𝓉𝑒𝓇𝓂𝒾𝓃𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓌𝒽𝑒𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇 𝓊𝓉𝒾𝓁𝒾𝓉𝒶𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓃𝒾𝓈𝓂 𝒾𝓈 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓇𝓇𝑒𝒸𝓉 𝓂𝑜𝓇𝒶𝓁 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝑜𝓇𝓎 𝒾𝓈 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓅𝓁𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓉𝑒𝒹 𝒷𝑒𝒸𝒶𝓊𝓈𝑒 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇𝑒 𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝒹𝒾𝒻𝒻𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓈𝒾𝑜𝓃𝓈 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝑜𝓇𝓎, 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝒾𝓉𝓈 𝓈𝓊𝓅𝓅𝑜𝓇𝓉𝑒𝓇𝓈 𝒹𝒾𝓈𝒶𝑔𝓇𝑒𝑒 𝒶𝒷𝑜𝓊𝓉 𝓌𝒽𝒾𝒸𝒽 𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓈𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝒾𝓈 𝒸𝑜𝓇𝓇𝑒𝒸𝓉.
[...]
𝒰𝓉𝒾𝓁𝒾𝓉𝒶𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓃𝒾𝓈𝓂 𝒶𝓅𝓅𝑒𝒶𝓇𝓈 𝓉𝑜 𝒷𝑒 𝒶 𝓈𝒾𝓂𝓅𝓁𝑒 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝑜𝓇𝓎 𝒷𝑒𝒸𝒶𝓊𝓈𝑒 𝒾𝓉 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝒾𝓈𝓉𝓈 𝑜𝒻 𝑜𝓃𝓁𝓎 𝑜𝓃𝑒 𝑒𝓋𝒶𝓁𝓊𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓋𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝒾𝓃𝒸𝒾𝓅𝓁𝑒: 𝒟𝑜 𝓌𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒹𝓊𝒸𝑒𝓈 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒷𝑒𝓈𝓉 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝑒𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓃𝒸𝑒𝓈. 𝐼𝓃 𝒻𝒶𝒸𝓉, 𝒽𝑜𝓌𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓇, 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝑜𝓇𝓎 𝒾𝓈 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓅𝓁𝑒𝓍 𝒷𝑒𝒸𝒶𝓊𝓈𝑒 𝓌𝑒 𝒸𝒶𝓃𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝓊𝓃𝒹𝑒𝓇𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝓈𝒾𝓃𝑔𝓁𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝒾𝓃𝒸𝒾𝓅𝓁𝑒 𝓊𝓃𝓁𝑒𝓈𝓈 𝓌𝑒 𝓀𝓃𝑜𝓌 (𝒶𝓉 𝓁𝑒𝒶𝓈𝓉) 𝓉𝒽𝓇𝑒𝑒 𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓃𝑔𝓈: [...] 𝒷) 𝓌𝒽𝑜𝓈𝑒 𝑔𝑜𝑜𝒹 (𝒾.𝑒. 𝓌𝒽𝒾𝒸𝒽 𝒾𝓃𝒹𝒾𝓋𝒾𝒹𝓊𝒶𝓁𝓈 𝑜𝓇 𝑔𝓇𝑜𝓊𝓅𝓈) 𝓌𝑒 𝓈𝒽𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝒶𝒾𝓂 𝓉𝑜 𝓂𝒶𝓍𝒾𝓂𝒾𝓏𝑒; 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝒸) 𝓌𝒽𝑒𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇 𝒶𝒸𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃𝓈, 𝓅𝑜𝓁𝒾𝒸𝒾𝑒𝓈, 𝑒𝓉𝒸. 𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝓂𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝓇𝒾𝑔𝒽𝓉 𝑜𝓇 𝓌𝓇𝑜𝓃𝑔 𝒷𝓎 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝒾𝓇 𝒶𝒸𝓉𝓊𝒶𝓁 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝑒𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓃𝒸𝑒𝓈
[...]
𝒷. 𝒲𝒽𝑜𝓈𝑒 𝒲𝑒𝓁𝓁-𝒷𝑒𝒾𝓃𝑔?
Quote from: 2 0818
Dale Eastman I can easily answer that question, and so can you. But that's not the point. You're clearly attempting to lure me into a debate, the conclusion of which you probably believe to be profound. The problem is, I've heard this argument before,