Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: February 04, 2023, 08:12:51 AM »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.
Quote from: 4 0926
Dale Eastman lol. You are off your rocker. Take your batshittery somewhere else.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: 4 1010
BM posted a comment card.
Quote from: 4 1010
Granny Smith did you miss where he tagged me to this page?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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".
Quote from: 4 1026
Brett McQuigg I'm not starting down this road yet again. It's like groundhog day.
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.
Quote from: 4 1033
Dale Eastman have a good life, and leave me alone. This is the last time I'll ask.
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".
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: 4 1045
Brett McQuigg cool. ✌️
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?
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,