Author Topic: JS  (Read 90 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,490
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
JS
« on: March 13, 2022, 09:51:16 AM »
Quote from: 1119 12 Mar
Federal Income Tax Law.

You don't know what you don't know.

Now that I have your attention...

Quote from: 1119 12 Mar
I see there are three admins for this group. One that has invited me into this group twice. If I am to be ejected from this group because I conclude that most of the members only give lip-service to liberty and don't really give a shit about liberty, then please do so now before I spend time educating the... the... um... majority of members in this group who have no fucking clue about U.S. Federal income taxes.

If not ejected, what will follow will be quotes of the actual written words of law. Something that F'tard couldn't handle in a discussion about said tax laws, so he was compelled by I don't know what in his muddled mind which motivated him to block me and delete all his posts.
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,490
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: JS
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2022, 09:54:31 AM »
Quote from: 1137 12 Mar
Dale Eastman In the best long term interest of your own mental health, you should probably stop trying to demand that other people manage you.

You manage you. Nobody else can or should manage you.

This is *literally* libertarian 101 stuff.
Quote from: 1742 12 Mar
At this moment the only thing you have presented and conveyed to me is you don't like what I have to say. And you really have not articulated anything worth my attention. When you do, then I will address you in more than a dismissive manner.
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,490
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: JS
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2022, 10:02:19 AM »
Quote from: 1903 12 Mar
Dale Eastman literally repeatedly told you that I agreed with your views with regards to both voting and taxation. You are here to fight and troll people with your half lucid, spammy image macros and aren't even paying attention to whom you are speaking with. Demanding that other people challenge, confront, and spar with you over a topic that the vast majority of people here already agree with you about is why people are mocking you right now. You look out of touch. I am trying to help you stop that which is the only reason I've responded to any of your posts at all.
Quote from: 1955 12 Mar
Dale Eastman literally repeatedly told you that I agreed with your views with regards to both voting and taxation.

Well, one or both of us have failed to articulate my view(s) specifically regarding written tax law. Let me say it again: The written tax law does not say what most people believe it says. Is that the specific issue for which you want to mock me?

You are here to fight and troll people with your half lucid, spammy image macros and aren't even paying attention to whom you are speaking with.

That sir, is an accusatory claim. What, specifically, are you calling "half lucid? Please quote (copy/paste) the exact "half lucid" words I used and then explain why you are of the opinion that those words are "half lucid"

Who I'm speaking "at" are the people bitching about income tax with no fucking clue as to what the words mean. So what specifically is your problem with my posting, for my intent, to present those unknown words?

Demanding that other people challenge, confront, and spar with you over a topic that the vast majority of people here already agree with

That's a logical error on your part. Unless you can read the minds of "the vast majority of people here" you have no clue as to what they agree or don't agree with.

Your second logical error is presuming to speak for "the vast majority of people here". You are not we. You are not they.

You make a third error of potential equivocation by referring to a topic not defined. Please articulate succinctly, what, exactly, the topic agreed or denied actually is.

Demanding that other people challenge, confront, and spar with you

There is no issue. I'm right. And I am proving it with my quotations of the actual written words of tax law to be posted in this thread about... Imagine this... The written words of tax law.

is why people are mocking you right now.

There you go, pretending you can read people's minds, presuming to speak for them, and failing to present any proof of me being mocked. I have a reality check reader that confirms my observation no mocking. If you mean the laugh reacts... Sticks and stones and not a valid conflicting word presented.

You look out of touch.

Your opinion does not make it so.

I am trying to help you stop that which is the only reason I've responded to any of your posts at all.

I'm not going to unpack the errors and spin you just spewed in that sentence.

I am going to muse aloud, through my fingers... Why is this person so intent on interfering with my posting?
SCROLL BAR Free to use ⇉⇉⇉⇉
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,490
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: JS
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2022, 10:07:12 AM »
Quote from: 2044 12 Mar
>>>"Well, one or both of us have failed to articulate my view(s) specifically regarding written tax law. Let me say it again: The written tax law does not say what most people believe it says. Is that the specific issue for which you want to mock me?"

I am not the person mocking you. I am not disagreeing without about fucking taxes brother. BUT YOU KEEP BRINGING IT UP AS IF I AM. Because you *don't listen*.

>>>"That sir, is an accusatory claim. What, specifically, are you calling "half lucid? Please quote (copy/paste) the exact "half lucid" words I used and then explain why you are of the opinion that those words are "half lucid""

So you're agreeing to everything but "Half lucid", got it.
I'll rephrase then - "You are here to fight and troll people with your spammy image macros and aren't even paying attention to whom you are speaking with."


>>>"Who I'm speaking "at" are the people bitching about income tax with no fucking clue as to what the words mean. So what specifically is your problem with my posting, for my intent, to present those unknown words?"

You are presenting good ideas and making them look the worse. Nobody listens to people who act like jerks. You are acting like a jerk. You have repeatedly made broad comments about the people here, without knowing many, if any of them. You have shown no curiosity about them. You didn't read. The. Fucking. Room. Before. Speaking. Which leads to the next point -

>>>"That's a logical error on your part. Unless you can read the minds of "the vast majority of people here" you have no clue as to what they agree or don't agree with."


Someone has a log in their eye, boy oh boy. This is how you came into this conversation -

"If I am to be ejected from this group because I conclude that >>>*most of the members*<<< only give lip-service to liberty and don't really give a shit about liberty, then please do so now before I spend time educating the... the... um... >>>*majority of members in this group*<<< who have no fucking clue about U.S. Federal income taxes."

In addition, I wasn't making an argument against any point you've tried to make. I was criticizing your methodology. Again.

"Your second logical error is presuming to speak for "the vast majority of people here". You are not we. You are not they. You make a third error of potential equivocation by referring to a topic not defined. Please articulate succinctly, what, exactly, the topic agreed or denied actually is."

See above. Accusing people of doing the thing you're doing is a super bad form.

"There is no issue. I'm right. And I am proving it with my quotations of the actual written words of tax law to be posted in this thread about... Imagine this... The written words of tax law."

Nobody cares if you're a jerk. It doesn't matter if you're right, and for the record, I agree with your take. Again.
Someone needs to learn about honey and vinegar.
You tromped in, started making sweeping insults, repeatedly NPC spammed at everyone, shared with great gusto and pride Your Amazing New Acronym For Things People Already Generally Know Here, got mad when you weren't praised, and assumed that you're surrounded by idiots as a result.

I imagine your whole life has been a slowly losing war against all these "Stupid people", and I am sincerely sorry for you.

But go on posting copy pasted mini manifestos with links to websites and have everyone quietly move on without telling you why your message is falling on dead ears.

You talk about scrolling on, the frustration you are experiencing here is exactly that, the sound of people scrolling past you.
Quote
You and I just might have some serious head-butting to do. But first I want to thank you for actually addressing my challenge to cite what you have called my "half lucid" words. It remains to be seen if you actually did the second part: explain why you are of the opinion that those words are "half lucid"

Me: Is that the specific issue for which you want to mock me?
Specific issue not germane to this issue of 'mocking', but not dropped either.

I am not the person mocking you.

I will accept that statement at face value...

is why people are mocking you right now.

Please provide the perma-link(s) to the post(s) you are claiming by implication, that are mocking me.

Because you *don't listen*.

I neither admit nor deny the charge specified. By acknowledging the charge I am admitting to its plausibility.

So you're agreeing to everything but "Half lucid", got it.

You have made a very specific claim about me. You have presumed to read my mind and the presumed to speak for me about what I have agreed or disagreed with. (I am aware of your charge of me doing the same below. I'll address that when I get to that part of your reply.)

I'll rephrase then - "You are here to fight and troll people with your spammy image macros and aren't even paying attention to whom you are speaking with."

Meta content, Meta meanings "spammy image macros". I know how that game is played. I communicated that when I addressed your "spewed" sentence that I wasn't going to unpack.

I'm here to fight with people who react as you have. Guilty on that count. Since you've decided to take offense with my words... And now I am specifically trolling you. May I suggest that if you believe I am a troll, then maybe you should quit feeding me?

You are presenting good ideas and making them look the worse.

That is your opinion and your claim as truth.

Nobody listens to people who act like jerks.

And yet, here you are interacting with me.

You are acting like a jerk.

That is your opinion and your claim as truth.

You have repeatedly made broad comments about the people here, without knowing many, if any of them.

You only get ¾ credit for that claim.

I know for a fact that those who are here because this is a Libertarian party Rah! Rah! site are the people who think voting will make any difference. It won't! Because it hasn't for over 230 years.

I know them by their stated beliefs and their belief driven actions. They vote. This segues to a question of their belief about authority. I'm not interested in a tangential discussion of voting, authority, and an alleged right to rule as a sub topic to my purpose with this OP and following thread.

You have shown no curiosity about them.

I've spent more time "discussing" tax law with Lawyers, CPA's, and Enrolled Agents, than I wish to admit. I've also had my website because of those "discussions" since 17 years ago. I know "them" as people indoctrinated by the government in their 12 year "Correct Thinking" public schooling. I know "them" because, Like HH who blocked me and deleted his half of the discussion. "Them" don't like being shown how they've been, and are continuing to be, defrauded and conned.

You didn't read. The. Fucking. Room. Before. Speaking.

Translation I didn't read you before, and continuing, to speak. Suck it up buttercup.

Me: "That's a logical error on your part. Unless you can read the minds of "the vast majority of people here" you have no clue as to what they agree or don't agree with."

Someone has a log in their eye, boy oh boy.

I'm calling you on your contextomy.


Quoting out of context is an informal fallacy in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. Contextomies may be either intentional or accidental if someone misunderstands the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it to be non-essential. Wikipedia

I did not presume to speak for the group, nor members of the group. You did.

This is how you came into this conversation -

Edited for clarity. Me: I conclude that most of the members only give lip-service to liberty and don't really give a shit about liberty,

I stand by that claim. If you vote you are giving lip-service to liberty. My 20 Points of YDOM explains why. If that needs further examination and discussion, I will start another thread topic upon request.

Me: who have no fucking clue about U.S. Federal income taxes.

You claim you agree with me about "taxes". That claim is a null claim because "taxes" has not been defined.

You agree with me that taxation is extortion? That taxation is theft? That provably, no law requires most to sign a w-4 or w-9? That without that "withholding allowance certificate" there is no information to be reported to the IRS, nor is there a legal requirement for withholding to happen? Or that you agree with me that the government has been lying about the tax law since 1913?


I wasn't making an argument against any point you've tried to make. I was criticizing your methodology. Again.

Oh... So you're the group's grammar and speech police. YDOM Piss off.

Nobody cares if you're a jerk.

Well apparently you do.

It doesn't matter if you're right

I'm quite used to such deliberate ignorance. A friend of my wife after reading some of my website wrote:"If this is true, why would we all be paying?" How can anybody know if this is true if they refuse to look into it?

Edited for clarity:
You tromped in, started making sweeping insults, [...] got mad when you weren't praised, and assumed that you're surrounded by idiots as a result.

If you felt insulted, that's your problem. Whether I'm mad or not makes no difference. What are the facts? One plus one does NOT equal three. I've had many idiots asserting that it does in my limited time online. (I was a late adopter of the internet. I've only been online since '96.)

Your Amazing New Acronym For Things People Already Generally Know Here,

My experience in life is that if "It goes without saying", then it most certainly needs to be said. "People Already Generally Know Here," that nobody owns them? Then why are the cowards acting as if they are owned? And asking for a different massa every 2, 4, or 6 years?

I imagine your whole life has been a slowly losing war against all these "Stupid people", and I am sincerely sorry for you.

Your sad attempt at making yourself feel better by denigrating me is noted.

But go on posting copy pasted mini manifestos with links to websites and have everyone quietly move on without telling you why your message is falling on dead ears.

I will never know how many people silently read my words an find value in them. Neither will you.

I know my words have been mirrored on a few websites, so those webmasters found enough value in my words to post them to their websites. Do you know if your words have been mirrored on anybody else's website? I didn't see any links to your website. I'm writing this post on a computer given my by my Patreon because he likes my words and wants me to do more writing.


You talk about scrolling on, the frustration you are experiencing here is exactly that, the sound of people scrolling past you

Now you are just making shit up. Cough troll cough.

Quote
Straw poll folks.

You are presenting good ideas and making them look the worse.
and have everyone quietly move on without telling you why your message is falling on dead ears.

Agree or disagree?










« Last Edit: March 13, 2022, 12:20:17 PM by Dale Eastman »
Natural Law Matters