4 > Discussions; Public Archive
SH
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote ---OP
The words of the meme:
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 29 0802 ---You forgot to tag SH.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 29 0912 ---Dale Eastman and yet, she isn't in a cage. 🤷🏼♀️
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 29 0937 ---Connecting the dots is not your strong point, is it?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 29 1035 ---Dale Eastman I'd say it's not yours. 😉
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 29 1038 ---Would it be fair to say you and I don't have very high opinions of each other?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 29 1054 ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 29 1501 ---➽ 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.
--- End quote ---
x
--- Quote from: 29 1720 ---Dale Eastman well then, thanks for proving me correct, I guess.
Good luck with your world view.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 29 1936 ---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?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 29 2007 ---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.
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: 30 1101 ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 30 1101 ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 30 1102 ---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?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 30 1139 ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 30 1224 ---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.
--- End quote ---
x
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: Another person's original post ---If taking 100% of someone's labour and free will is slavery, at what percentage is it NOT slavery...?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 2 0947 ---Sara Hiller, Care to supply an answer?
cc: Debra Osborn, for the lulz.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 2 1023 ---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".
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 2 1037 ---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.
--- End quote ---
;
--- Quote from: 2 1103 ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 2 1928 ---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?
--- End quote ---
;
--- 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, 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.
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: 3 1033 ---➽ 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.
--- End quote ---
'
--- Quote from: 3 1048 ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 3 1536 ---➽ 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.
--- End quote ---
.
--- Quote from: 3 1652 ---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.
--- End quote ---
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?
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: Feb 4 09:10 ---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.
--- End quote ---
.
--- Quote from: 4 0926 ---Dale Eastman lol. You are off your rocker. Take your batshittery somewhere else.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 4 09:34 ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: GS 4 0938 ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: GS 4 0941 ---BTW - last I checked, this is Dale's FB page. Telling him to '"take his ... somewhere else" is getting above yourself.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 4 0957 ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 4 1010 ---BM posted a comment card.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 4 1010 ---Granny Smith did you miss where he tagged me to this page?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 4 1017 ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 4 1021 ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 4 1023 ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: =4 1024 ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 4 1025 ---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
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 4 1026 ---➽ 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".
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 4 1026 ---Brett McQuigg I'm not starting down this road yet again. It's like groundhog day.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 4 1032 ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 4 1033 ---Dale Eastman have a good life, and leave me alone. This is the last time I'll ask.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 4 1034 ---Sara Hiller I'm still waiting for you to prove that my claim of you contradicting yourself is "𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓉𝓉𝓎 𝓉𝓇𝒶𝓃𝓈𝓅𝒶𝓇𝑒𝓃𝓉𝓁𝓎 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝒹".
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 4 1036 ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 4 1040 ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 4 1044 ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 4 1045 ---Brett McQuigg cool. ✌️
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 4 1142 ---➽ 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?
--- End quote ---
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,
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version