Old Dialog Boards and Old Threads > Old Threads
A Facebook Discussion
Dale Eastman:
Replacing missing context...
Cuz... Well... Context:
--- Quote ---Yes I would love power. Yes I enjoy controlling people.
Yes I want to be the dictator of the entire world.
--- End quote ---
I wrote: By parsing, combining, and translating your various words, you have claimed that:
You would be willing to kill me to end my VALID authority and VALID rule over you.
I wrote: This says much about your morality and beliefs. You stated that you are willing to commit murder to end authority that you claim is valid.
I asked: If this authority is valid, then why would you premeditate murder to end it?
Ms. xxxxxxxx did not answer the question at the time it was asked. As of this post draft, Ms. xxxxxxxx is still ignoring the question.
Ms. xxxxxxxx did not challenge my parsing, combining, and translating her various words. (This is not a legal proceeding so estoppel does not apply. I will just point out Ms. xxxxxxxx's backpedal when/if it happens.)
Ms. xxxxxxxx wrote:
--- Quote ---I love to control people.
--- End quote ---
To which I responded: Apparently without regard for morality.
--- Quote ----- Are you familiar with stage 6 moral reasoning and the Heinz dilemma. I posted a short video of it. Have you reached stage 6 yet where it explain under what circumstances stealing is morally right?
--- End quote ---
This is a non sequitur to the topic of your immoral world dominating aspirations.
This is also another attempt at deflection, distraction, and diversion regarding your immoral world dominating aspirations.
However, I will engage on this topic because I opened this door by questioning your immoral world dominating aspirations.
Wikipedia has the words of the video in print as if transcribed. Link.
You misrepresent the purpose of the Heinz dilemma.
You ask:
{Have you reached stage 6 yet where it explain under what circumstances stealing is morally right?}
Excusez mon français, BULLSHIT!
It does NOT explain circumstances where stealing is morally right. It posits a dilemma. It's words are, and I quote:
{Stage six (universal human ethics): Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person.
OR: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.}
Those are the words of a dilemma. In no way, shape, or form do those words justify theft. Their purpose is to elicit justifications.
Wikipedia wrote:
--- Quote ---For his studies, Kohlberg relied on stories such as the Heinz dilemma, and was interested in how individuals would justify their actions if placed in similar moral dilemmas. He then analyzed the form of moral reasoning displayed, rather than its conclusion, and classified it as belonging to one of six distinct stages.
[…]
Kohlberg's scale is about how people justify behaviors and his stages are not a method of ranking how moral someone's behavior is.
--- End quote ---
Wikipedia wrote:
--- Quote ---Kohlberg's theory holds that moral reasoning, which is the basis for ethical behavior, has six identifiable developmental constructive stages
--- End quote ---
You are attempting to use the dilemma as a form of justification for your immoral world dominating aspirations.
--- Quote ---My main point was "Voluntary charity will never meet the needs of those who cannot produce due to illness or age.
--- End quote ---
Your evidence for that claim please?
--- Quote ---Force is required to extort people or there will always be a precariat class and an oligarchy"
--- End quote ---
Your evidence for that claim please?
--- Quote ---and you have no evidence to the contrary.
--- End quote ---
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
In a third thread
--- Quote from: You ---He [...] thinks the government's power is illegitimate and calls it extortion.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: You ---Extortion is authority, power is authority, might is authority, threat, duress coercion -- all authority -- bogus? of course but so what
--- End quote ---
That sure looks like you agree with me.
Was there a point you were attempting to establish?
Full quote:
--- Quote ---He says he is not an Ancap but an anarchist who thinks the government's power is illegitimate and calls it extortion.
--- End quote ---
There you go, presuming to speak for me and presuming to label me.
If you go back through our dialog you will see that I have been pounding on one thing: Without consent - authority is threat, duress, and/or coercion which all fall under the description of extortion. Government's alleged authority is extortion: Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you.
Do you have anything to refute that political law is all Comply or die?
--- Quote from: Ms. X ---no I cannot refute that
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote --- You want a good argument JMJ -- DE is your man. He can match you legal point for legal point and I'll bet Dale would love to argue with someone who has a law degree -- he likes a challenge -- oh and by the way he is an anarchist who will tell you the government's authority is illegitimate and they are no better than the mafia. How dare they government him without his consent?
--- End quote ---
It takes you less than a minute to post your sound bite comments.
I want to be sure of what I am attempting to communicate, so 3+ hours per post to articulate my points is not uncommon.
And I'm calling you on your presumption to speak for me and label me. Just link to this forum if you want people so see my points.
Dale Eastman:
If you are not up to posting on the forum I provided, we can go back to the discussion right here.
I will still be keeping a record of our discussion over there.
My number 1 purpose is for me to keep track of the flow of our discussion.
Number 2 purpose is so I can keep track of the points not yet addressed.
Number 3 purpose is so others can do number 1 & 2.
Over there:
http://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=653.msg14800#msg14800
Dale Eastman:
Ms. x wrote:
--- Quote ---I think it is extortion. I like extortion
--- End quote ---
I appreciate you being honest that Do what you are told or you will be hurt is extortion.
And I read this as you agreeing with me that such alleged authority is bogus.
--- Quote from: Ms.xxxxxxxx ---Extortion is authority, power is authority, might is authority, threat, duress coercion -- all authority -- bogus? of course
--- End quote ---
Connecting that quote of you to your second sentence, I parse you saying you like bogus authority.
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: Ms. xxxxxxxx ---Yes the alleged authority is bogus unless you accept the unpleasant fact that in the real world, might makes right.
--- End quote ---
[Exasperated sigh]
So...
A car jacker pointing a gun at your face and saying, Get out of the car lady, is right?
A junkie pointing a gun at a cashier's face and saying, Gimme the money, is right?
Soldiers implementing the Final Solution at Auschwitz and ten other locations is right?
I find that I must insist that you answer the third question.
If you answer yes, I must demand you present your justification.
I want to know why a Jew would justify Hitler's Final Solution.
Just so you know, ishshah, though I be a goy, I am not unaware of Jewish angst.
(In a room full of Jews, this goy was the only one to sound the shofar.)
--- Quote from: Ms. xxxxxxxx ---Yes I like bogus authority - statism - as opposed to anarchy.
--- End quote ---
Then am I correctly interpreting that you like Hitler's statist Final Solution?
--- Quote from: A yente ---Yes he is lol. How dare you claim that the property conquered by an army during a war does not mean legitimate ownership of that land?
--- End quote ---
How dare you presume to speak for me.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version