Author Topic: JM  (Read 86 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,695
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
JM
« on: April 16, 2022, 08:27:53 AM »
A link to a main stream news article started this discussion.
This is the head line.
Quote
USPS services suspended in Santa Monica neighborhood after repeat attacks on carriers
Quote from: 16:17 12 April
I think the population of the counties throughout the USA should be evened out more.
Quote from: 1634 13 April
I think the population of the counties throughout the USA should be evened out more.

Isn't that what the Klaus Klown at WEF are trying to do?
Quote from: 2119 13 April
never heard of them. Also I know and don't care to make the populations of all the counties flat. I just want to deal with the population extremities. Cap it at 1-2 million people per county then have super sparse counties get resolved by the counties around them.
Quote from: 0630 14Apr
<scrolls up, reads group name, scrolls back down>

Identified Thinkers.

How do you propose to cap the populations without violating the free will of all those humans?

Please make sure you tag me in your replies
dale.eastman.75 preceded by the "@" symbol with no spaces.
Quote from: 0632 14Apr
I think you can use punative measures like cutting funding if the county continues to keep accepting more residents after passing the threshold. To mu understanding that's pretty compelling.
Quote from: 0634 14APR
I think you can use punative measures

Do punitive measures violate free will?
Quote from: 0635 14APR
so does the market forcing everyone to live in a closet.
Quote from: 0908 14APR
Dale Eastman now that ive read that correctly. Not necessarily. You can impune someone for infringing upon your rights, autonomy, agency, property, etc.
Quote from: 1007 14APR
I appreciate that you discern the difference... But I'm calling you on your attempt to distract from the context.

You stated:
I think the population of the counties throughout the USA should be evened out more.

I asked:
How do you propose to cap the populations without violating the free will of all those humans?

You responded:
I think you can use punative measures...

What I understand is that you are implying that initiating measures to violate free will to force people to not live somewhere they want to live is not really violating free will.

Did I correctly understand what you just conveyed?
Quote from: 1238/0038 15APR
Dale Eastman yeah I probably should have reread the thread, but I think limiting free will helps maximize free will, which is why eliminating negative freedoms is important, like e.g.: freedom to murder.
Quote from: 0705 15APR
I appreciate your thinking as it leaks out in your words. Context is easy to lose with Fecalbook being set up for the written version of sound bites.

It took me awhile to process the difference between freedom and liberty. A friend made a wonderful comment that covers it. Liberty has rules; freedom does not. Set that aside for the moment.

Full disclosure, I'm slightly fucking with you. I have a website. I'm refurbishing it so I have four new pages that might clue you in as to what I'm challenging you on.

Perhaps you are not fully aware of how you are trying to direct this discussion. Perhaps you are not fully aware of your bias.

Your position that I am aiming at is you supporting the use of force to do harm to other humans that have done no harm to you, nor to anybody else.

What's next after you can't live here? Get on the train for a free ride to Auschwitz?

Once you and I come to terms on what you are suggesting, (in my opinion a bias you are not aware of) I'd be happy to discuss the issue of, to use your words, "freedom to murder", why such a freedom does not exist, and what to do if somebody attempts to violate another human's right to life.

Kudos for being good in how you are responding to my challenges to your posts. I'm almost annoyed about the fact that how you are responding is so rare that I am compelled to give acknowledgement and thanks when it happens.
Quote from: 2037 15APR
This is not something that you would want to jail/kill anyone over. Basically I don't think we should have small towns be so sparce that they end up having to do without certain government supports, for things like schools, and various public services, and on the other side we should probably prevent people from moving themselves into what is essentially squalor or living in closets like in China. Can't help but see both groups of people getting hurt by this in one way or another. Don't have to completely flatten the populations of each county. Just trim the population extremities a bit. I would only ever enforce this population cap by withholding tax federal and/or state tax money that would go towards the county and have them tax their own citizens to pay for their needs. That's all I would ever do.
Quote from: 2041 15 APR
I didn't get tagged by you. I almost missed that you had replied. I will read and reply to your post in the morning after some sleep.
Quote from: 1250/0050 16APR
alright






Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,695
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: JM
« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2022, 09:03:23 AM »
Quote from: 1002 16APR
Understand that you are in a discussion with a pedantic asshole. I am assuming that you can look up the word pedantic yourself. And I'm sure you know how aggravating dealing with an asshole can be.

Hi, I'm that pedantic asshole.

Words convey concepts. Words have meanings... Sometime multiple meanings... If the meanings are not agreed to, concepts can not be conveyed.

Wickedpedia: In logic, equivocation is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument. It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence.

I find myself often challenging ambiguous comments when the person making the comment is not aware of the ambiguity in their comment or the double assumption they make, assuming others make the same assumptions they make.

Basically I don't think we should...

Who, specifically, is this "we"?
You and I are not this we. You, I, and some 320 to 340 million Americans are not we.
I will note that you are stating an opinion. I reject your opinion because it presumes to tell me what I must do.

Basically I don't think we should have small towns be so sparce that they end up having to do without certain government supports...

OBJECTION! Government is not defined.

You and I are not likely to assume the same meaning for government. My definition causes cognitive dissonance and pisses people off. I get ghosted in discussions because I ask questions and challenge assumptions in claims others make.

on the other side we should probably prevent people from

Just exactly how are you, I, and some others going to prevent people from whatever?

Can't help but see both groups of people getting hurt by this in one way or another.

The moment free will is denied, harm is being done. This is what I challenged you about to begin with.

I would only ever enforce this population cap by withholding tax federal and/or state tax money that would go towards the county and have them tax their own citizens to pay for their needs. That's all I would ever do.

And here is the crux of the conflict.

As a pedantic asshole have to directly ask you, Are you for liberty or are you for slavery?
Natural Law Matters