Author Topic: MB  (Read 542 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,371
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: MB
« Reply #15 on: October 29, 2021, 12:41:54 PM »
Quote
Just a bump and notification post in case you missed the notification on this new thread. Any react emoticon tells me you saw this post and thread.
Quote
Yes, My apologies, I did read through it but haven’t had much time for anything lengthy for a while. I’ll try to get to it tonight
« Last Edit: October 30, 2021, 09:49:51 AM by Dale Eastman »
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,371
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: MB
« Reply #16 on: October 30, 2021, 06:35:59 PM »
Quote
Dale Eastman, (Post 1) As I’m sure you’re expecting, I’m not going to have time to respond to everything you wrote line-by-line. Luckily, I don’t think I need to in order to address everything you wrote. I’m sure you read my whole piece through at least once before responding, but it appears to me that when you got to breaking down my previous response line-by-line, you ended up treating each line as an individual point, instead of a part of a congruent paragraph/explanation. In doing so, you misinterpreted a few things or made points that were already countered in the next line of my writing. I suggest going back and reading with the assumption that everything I say is meant to work with the rest of the statement.
Now, I think I can address multiple points with only a few responses, so here’s my go at it.
Quote
Post #2. You write, “Now that you have put that into words, that is the very same question I have for you. (Can you separate what you think should be, from what is?)
No, you can’t ask that same question to me in any meaningful way because I have not once expressed how I think things should be. It wouldn’t make any sense to ask me about an action that I haven’t been doing. However, when you write, “Likewise, your thoughts about "what is" are just as subject to examination as my thoughts are about "what is".” This is a valid statement and I agree. It also demonstrates that you’re struggling with the concept of separating “what is” with what “should be”. And please, don’t take that as an insult; I’m not coming at you. I’m just trying to show the fact that sentence came immediately after a sentence about what should be, that you’re struggling with separating the concepts. Either that, or your dodging the whole idea of your mixing “should” with “is” and that was just your way of not having to think about it. I don’t know, but I try to assume the most noble option, and I think that’s the former. I agree we’re discussing our differences, but let’s be clear about what happened. You made a factual statement (“The government is a criminal syndicate…”) and asked if I could prove it wrong. I factually proved it wrong, and you agreed to that (which is commendable). The rest of our discussion is off the original topic; and I _am_
Quote
Post 3 of 3) Moving on. You write, “Your focus on "law", such as it appears to me, makes me wonder about whether you understand the issue(s) with legal definitions, that is to say, statutory definitions in the written words of law.” I must point out that this is a completely different topic. Again, the legal definition is factually the legal definition, no matter your opinion of its issues. I also take issue with many legal definitions, but my issue with them, doesn’t change the facts. The reason I stick with law, in this discussion, is because the claim was a legal claim… I feel I need to repeat that for clarity, I stuck to law because I was arguing against a claim regarding law.
Everything else you said, related to word usage “In general”, is fine. What that opening phrase really means then, is, “The government is a really immoral, organized group of people, that takes money from citizens under the threat of force.” And I said I’m fine with that 5 weeks ago. But then you try to bring in tax codes and arguments about authority and that’s trying to make a _legal_ case. You’re confusing your moral beliefs with reality. I hate to keep beating that drum, but you keep doing it.
And this is ridiculously long and I just got to #2. Maybe we should do a recorded video call or something. I bet we could get everything settled in less than an hour that way… regardless, going to have to get at other points at a later time
Quote
I’m not going to have time to respond to everything you wrote line-by-line.

I don't expect you to. And I am appreciative of the fact that you address and respond to the things you have. My only concern, if that's even the correct word to use, is either of us missing a notification. Real life has demands and there's only so many hours in a day. I wish there were some additional different react emoticons. I opine that's an easy way to acknowledge having been notified.

Not knowing the algorithm, I don't like using the negative emoticons when I don't want to use a positive emoticon... Oh well...

breaking down my previous response line-by-line, you ended up treating each line as an individual point, instead of a part of a congruent paragraph/explanation.

Sometimes I take sentences apart word by word. I do understand your criticism though. For example, to show my understanding, I'm going to take a single word apart. "Radio". Make that two. "Radio receiver." From memory: Think a single box block diagram. Inside that box are the stages (more boxes) that make up the radio.

RF amplifier; tunable RF amplifier; LO (local oscillator); IF amplifier; Band pass filter; IF to AF converter (rectifier for AM); Variable AF amplifier (volume control); speaker. If any one of those sections doesn't work, the radio doesn't work. I was top of my class in learning and doing troubleshooting the radios and other electronic equipment the military was using way back then.

Anyway, your concern that I didn't get the meta or uber point you were presenting is acknowledged.

No, you can’t ask that same question to me in any meaningful way because I have not once expressed how I think things should be.

Agreed. In my review of the discussion, you did not express how you think things should be. Mea culpa on my misinterpretation of what you did NOT say. What you did not say is that "what is", is wrong, and "what is", needs to be changed. You basically expressed why "what is" can not be changed.

please, don’t take that as an insult;

You have not insulted me... Not agreeing with me, and telling me so is not an insult. That dipshit that felt compelled to post "TL;DR"... Now that... that... that person... He insulted me. <shrug> He's like that static between stations on the AM radio band. I've some pretty thick internet skin.

You made a factual statement (“The government is a criminal syndicate…”) and asked if I could prove it wrong. I factually proved it wrong, and you agreed to that (which is commendable). The rest of our discussion is off the original topic

Yeah... Um... That's not how I remembered the discussion, so I re-read the archive in its entirety. I actually did admit to your logic with proviso. That proviso is why I had not ceded the point to you.

The reason I had not admitted to you proving me wrong is the lack of agreement as to what constitutes a "crime".

Your point, your sticking point, is that "No law: no crime."

This is not conceding your point. This is an admission that you are making me think. I placed this on my status wall:
⚠ Honing the definitions to evermore resolution, or in other words; KISSing the concepts so that only the blind can not see the truths presented... I find I'm on a world just filled with blind people.

I'm getting push back on the KISSed concept:
Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

synapticsparks<DOT>info/dialog/index.php?topic=1043.msg15604#msg15604
is my latest upload with MB who is decrying my 12 word definition.

Because of MB's focus on crime requires a law against the act, maybe I should KISS my concept again:
Government is a group of people that extorts people for money and control. ⚠

So our discussion and your half of it have not been without effect.

You put focus on legality V. morality. You correctly, per your thinking, state that law is amoral. My view of law as a tool does not contradict the claim.

As I pointed out, a gun or a club are also amoral tools.

All become immoral when they are used for immoral purposes. Thus laws, when used immorally, become immoral laws. Amoral then no longer applies.

Your words from a very early comment:
It’s not possible to be criminal if the government makes it legal.

"No law: no crime." That's the four word version of your challenge to my use of the word criminal when describing government.

I tried, and perhaps failed, to point out that government will not make its own immoral actions criminal. Since government makes the laws, the rules, that define criminal acts, government will not make its immoral actions illegal and hence criminal. (By government, I intend the reified meaning. The use of an anthropomorphized concept as a singular entity even though it is not a singular entity... Like the Mafia or Walmart. The anthropomorphized concept is no more than an euphemism when government is described as it actually is.)

Since this discussion has touched upon law, I present these two legal concepts: Malum prohibitum and malum in se.

⚠ Malum prohibitum is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se. ⚠

⚠ Malum in se is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

For example, most human beings believe that murder, rape, and robbery are wrong, regardless of whether a law governs such conduct or where the conduct occurs, and is thus recognizably malum in se. In contrast, malum prohibitum crimes are criminal not because they are inherently bad, but because the act is prohibited by the law of the state. ⚠

Locke on natural law:
⚠ The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions ⚠

So what shall I call a person or an entity that violates Natural Law? Per your point, "No law; no crime" means I can not call a murderer, a rapist, or a robber a criminal unless government make a law defining those actions as crimes. Make no mistake about this: Government is a murderer and a robber.
Quote
Again, from an earlier post of yours:
Law A body of rules of conduct of binding legal force and effect, prescribed, recognized, and enforced by controlling authority.

Law: a body of rules.
Law: rules.
Rules made by a controlling authority.
A controlling authority: Rulers.
Rules made by rulers.
Rules made by rulers under what authority? Rules made by rulers by what permission?

In the United States, the Declaration of Independence clearly spells out whence this alleged authority comes from: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

I do not consent. Therefore, government's powers are not just. Per the U.S. government's own organic document, the D of I, government's alleged authority over me is void ab initio. Government's alleged authority over me is BOGUS.

I have no duty to obey government. And per Natural Law, I am within my rights to resist government, just as I am within my rights to resist any other criminal...

Per our discussion, let me reword that: Per Natural Law, I am within my rights to resist government, just as I am within my rights to resist any other wrong doer that has a goal of harming me.

You made the distinction between the legal use and the slang use of the word "criminal".

When a wrong doer with ill intent makes laws ignoring the wrong doer's own actions with intent of harm, You wish to argue with me that such a miscreant is not a criminal.

You are correct in your charge that I am making a morality argument against government and its laws.

What that opening phrase really means then, is, “The government is a really immoral, organized group of people, that takes money from citizens under the threat of force.” And I said I’m fine with that 5 weeks ago.

I concede the legality V. morality issue with thanks for causing me to more closely examine my position.

The government is a really immoral, organized group of people, that takes money from citizens under the threat of force.” And yeah, that’s true.

My perception (correct or not) of what you've been writing, implied to me that you were not / are not too concerned about the tyranny that is government in general, and the tyranny that is the U.S. federal government more specifically.

My purpose is creating apostasy in the minds of the believers in the false deity called government. This is what must happen if liberty and freedom from slavery is to exist.

This should be an easy short reply for you.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2021, 12:49:31 PM by Dale Eastman »
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,371
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: MB
« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2021, 01:44:30 PM »
MB has earned some more respect from me. When/if I get ambitious I'll change the color highlighting of his previous comments to other than red.
Quote
Dale Eastman Short reply: I think we made it to the right place to ‘call it’ in regards to the original claim.
Thank you, it was probably the best exchange of ideas I’ve experienced over facebook in a very long time.
Longer reply: I think I’m ready to allow the subject to change. As I’m sure you’ve noticed, I’ve been ignoring your moral claims in all manner except to point out the logical flaw of interchanging them with facts and letting them guide your factual beliefs. I’d prefer to keep away from discussing morality, for the time being. I suggest our next topic be the concept of authority; mostly because it appears to play a huge role in your arguments surrounding government. That, and I think there are significant differences between how we each view the concept, that will lead to an interesting dialogue.

However, you have allowed me to dominate the flow of the first discussion, and I’d like to offer you the opportunity to steer the conversation in a different direction if another topic is more pressing on your mind. Does the concept of authority suit, or is there a more pressing topic on which you’d like to focus?

Dialog continues here.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2021, 08:28:56 AM by Dale Eastman »
Natural Law Matters