This is what happens when politics go one sided

[Rob Roy]

You aren't schooling anybody you dotard. I know those terms better than you do evidently. What do you call using offensive force to punish a person who used offensive force to harm another person?

I'd say you are confused.

You may even be well intentioned, which makes it even worse, since many of the problems in life are caused by people who believe they know how to direct others lives for them and are willing to use offensive force to do it. You are one of them apparently.

I enjoyed your childish reaction over my schooling you, but it's sort of not on topic. I'd be happy to hear your arguments too, when they don't conflict with each other. Can you do that, rather than making grunting sounds and gesticulating wildly while stomping your feet and holding your breath until you get a cookie ?

 

[Rob Roy]

Lol you claim victory after that spew of nonsense?

"It's not peace, it just looks like peace" Holy fuck you bumbling dumbass!

So not only is the status quo superior in every way possible, now you admit your way includes slavery, discrimination, murder, rape, because we can't tell people what to do?! LMAO you sound like a pre-teen rebel.

No, the harm isn't in the punishing people when they harm eachother or "forcing" people not to harm eachother, the harm is when people actually harm other people. Are you really that dull?

The reason imposed order isn't peace but can sometimes look like it upon a surface inspection, is that your question?
That's a really good question. (Well you should have asked that question anyway)

Here let me help you...

Peace (my method) is when people are in agreement to associate, so they associate. Or if one or both prefers NOT to associate, then the agreement they have is to simply leave each other alone, peacefully.

Imposed order, (your method) is when one party makes a demand to associate and the other party is left with no alternative but to do as they are told or be harmed by the imposer. If the imposed upon party acquiesces, out of fear and not from agreement, it can, on the surface look like peace, but it isn't since the "agreement" isn't mutual and isn't really an agreement rather it is imposed order.

I doubt you can offer a refutation to my explanation, but do try.

Okay, that was your lesson for today.

 

[PCXV]

That was quite a colorful flock of flying strawmen you've attracted to your bird feeder.
Here, let me address your frothing at the mouth contradictory laden "argument"...

Slavery? My way does not include slavery. It doesn't tolerate one party being subjected to the directives of another or others in the ways that yours does. Your way is based in disallowing individuals the choice of self determination, which is the main ingredient of slavery isn't it?

Discrimination is a human trait wherein individuals chose their preference of one thing over another, based on their wants or needs. Today I will make a discriminating choice when I decide to drive my sweet antique Volvo rather than my dirty pickup truck. Without the ability to make your own choices about your own body and your stuff, to make discriminating choices about how you will run your OWN life, you become subject to another persons choices with or without your consent...a slave. Forcing people to serve others against their will to combat discrimination is doing it wrong, since it violates the individual right every person has to self determine. When you attempt to correct one perceived problem by violating another persons right, you haven't solved a problem, you've created another one.

Murder and rape? Okay, I'll bite. Which part of your anatomy did you pull those from ? Could you offer an example of where I endorse that ?

No, I am not dull, you should see me when I have the lampshade on my head.

Lol accusing me of strawman is highly ironic.

Murder, slavery, rape, discrimination exist on a huge scale in your utopia. Why? Because you don't believe authority or the law should exist to prevent/punish those actions. In other words, there is no enforcement mechanism to right those wrongs, they exist unfettered.

Your entire ideology is antithetical to the definition of a society.

 

[PCXV]

I'd say you are confused.

You may even be well intentioned, which makes it even worse, since many of the problems in life are caused by people who believe they know how to direct others lives for them and are willing to use offensive force to do it. You are one of them apparently.

I enjoyed your childish reaction over my schooling you, but it's sort of not on topic. I'd be happy to hear your arguments too, when they don't conflict with each other. Can you do that, rather than making grunting sounds and gesticulating wildly while stomping your feet and holding your breath until you get a cookie ?

They only contradict to you because you think peace isn't the absence of harm but the absense of being butthurt you can't harm someone else. You are so twisted up it is impossible to find common ground.

Yeah, I think authority is good for preventing and punishing harmful acts.

Childish? Funny coming from the guy with the mentality and knowledge of a rebelious teenager. You love to condescend and insult but whenever someone does it to you it's childish, right? Dumb dotard.

My arguments are perfectly logical. You trying to dismiss them as emotionally driven and immature is an obvious cop out to avoid fleshing out your ideology. 90% of your posts are vague hypotheticals with misused terminology and mixed with condescension and insults. You have zero room to criticize.

 

[PCXV]

The reason imposed order isn't peace but can sometimes look like it upon a surface inspection, is that your question?
That's a really good question. (Well you should have asked that question anyway)

Here let me help you...

Peace (my method) is when people are in agreement to associate, so they associate. Or if one or both prefers NOT to associate, then the agreement they have is to simply leave each other alone, peacefully.

Imposed order, (your method) is when one party makes a demand to associate and the other party is left with no alternative but to do as they are told or be harmed by the imposer. If the imposed upon party acquiesces, out of fear and not from agreement, it can, on the surface look like peace, but it isn't since the "agreement" isn't mutual and isn't really an agreement rather it is imposed order.

I doubt you can offer a refutation to my explanation, but do try.

Okay, that was your lesson for today.

More condescension and redundant, empty platitudes.

Would you consider that people on a wide scale refusing to associate with another person/group does harm to the person/group being discriminated against? Because that is exactly why we have anti-discrimination laws.

Peace, aka the absense of harm, will not exist for the majority in your utopia. Feuds, rivalry, racism, etc. between factions will result in tons of violence. A legal system that promotes justice, due process, morality, equality, fairness, etc. harms literally nobody, in fact it helps people rectify their selfishness, apathy, bigotry, etc. by disciplining or threatening to discipline their immoral actions. What you are proposing is like parents letting their kids hit the kid they don't like instead of forcing them to associate and talk it out/get to the bottom of prejudice and eradicate it.

 

[Rob Roy]

Lol accusing me of strawman is highly ironic.

Murder, slavery, rape, discrimination exist on a huge scale in your utopia. Why? Because you don't believe authority or the law should exist to prevent/punish those actions. In other words, there is no enforcement mechanism to right those wrongs, they exist unfettered.

Your entire ideology is antithetical to the definition of a society.

Not to be mean, but I don't think you have any idea how those things might be handled in "my utopia".

You are correct though in that I don't believe in arbitrary authority. The reason why is if there is such a thing as arbitrary authority, it would be impossible for humans to achieve or maintain equality. That is self evident since an authority is by definition more equal than others.

Maybe I'll explain the rest to you, when I'm ready to.

So are you claiming that murder, rape and assault etc. doesn't happen when there are "authorities" controlling the world, which is the present situation?

 

[Rob Roy]

They only contradict to you because you think peace isn't the absence of harm but the absense of being butthurt you can't harm someone else. You are so twisted up it is impossible to find common ground.

Yeah, I think authority is good for preventing and punishing harmful acts.

Childish? Funny coming from the guy with the mentality and knowledge of a rebelious teenager. You love to condescend and insult but whenever someone does it to you it's childish, right? Dumb dotard.

My arguments are perfectly logical. You trying to dismiss them as emotionally driven and immature is an obvious cop out to avoid fleshing out your ideology. 90% of your posts are vague hypotheticals with misused terminology and mixed with condescension and insults. You have zero room to criticize.

Yet, I wouldn't force two people to associate if one party didn't want to, and was willing to leave the other one alone.
You would though, which is the equivalent of you holding her down while your buddy sticks it in. Shame on you.

So, you believe you or somebody else should be an authority over other peoples bodies ? Where does that right come from? I don't have that right, nor do I want it, because it would mean somebody else could rationalize claiming that right over me, and that ain't happening.

"The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog." ~ Gilbert Keith Chesterton

 

[Rob Roy]

More condescension and redundant, empty platitudes.

Would you consider that people on a wide scale refusing to associate with another person/group does harm to the person/group being discriminated against? Because that is exactly why we have anti-discrimination laws.

Peace, aka the absense of harm, will not exist for the majority in your utopia. Feuds, rivalry, racism, etc. between factions will result in tons of violence. A legal system that promotes justice, due process, morality, equality, fairness, etc. harms literally nobody, in fact it helps people rectify their selfishness, apathy, bigotry, etc. by disciplining or threatening to discipline their immoral actions. What you are proposing is like parents letting their kids hit the kid they don't like instead of forcing them to associate and talk it out/get to the bottom of prejudice and eradicate it.

Yes I was fucking with you, by being condescending. I treat people how they treat me sometimes. I'm always willing to shift into more polite conversation though.

Once there was a girl who feel madly in love with me. (Must have dug my big furry feet) I was polite, but not as interested in her as she was in me. She claimed my not associating with her was hurting her deeply and causing her much pain and harm. Should she have gotten a gun and made me be her boy friend ? Should it have been my choice to not associate with her or did I somehow have an obligation to associate with her, because she insisted and claimed she was being harmed ?

 

[PCXV]

Not to be mean, but I don't think you have any idea how those things might be handled in "my utopia".

I think you might have a serious self-awareness problem. My misunderstanding of your ideals is the least of my concerns when it comes to our conversations.

You are correct though in that I don't believe in arbitrary authority. The reason why is if there is such a thing as arbitrary authority, it would be impossible for humans to achieve or maintain equality. That is self evident since an authority is by definition more equal than others.

Maybe I'll explain the rest to you, when I'm ready to.

So are you claiming that murder, rape and assault etc. doesn't happen when there are "authorities" controlling the world, which is the present situation?

Are you leading to an example of legitimate authority? Arbitrary authority, like weed prohibition, occurs under the status quo, and it is a great example of the flexibility of our system to rectify authority to bring it closer to legitimacy. We are seeing that happen before our very eyes. We have made a ton of progress and proven our system amendable countless times. That vouches for the legitimacy of our legal system.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Fogdog]

Rob Roy

uck. Waste of resources went into that one.

 

[PCXV]

Yet, I wouldn't force two people to associate if one party didn't want to, and was willing to leave the other one alone.
You would though, which is the equivalent of you holding her down while your buddy sticks it in. Shame on you.

So, you believe you or somebody else should be an authority over other peoples bodies ? Where does that right come from? I don't have that right, nor do I want it, because it would mean somebody else could rationalize claiming that right over me, and that ain't happening.

"The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog." ~ Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Your analogy in the first paragraph simply isn't true. It would be more like holding down the bully to make him talk it out with people he was being bigoted against as to eradicate prejudice and bigotry and create a peaceful resolution. Big difference, but you know that. We are talking about forcing association only when not forcing it results in extreme harm to the minority group. Put your ideals into context. It's not that your ideals are entirely invalid, you just don't make any exceptions. That is extreme and harmful, please see that. Judge the justification in context and you will realize they are not equivalent to rape and slavery. Would you ever consider that maybe authority does get it right in many instances by enforcing legitimate, undeniable justice and providing recourse via due process to ensure and account for justice?

 

[PCXV]

Yes I was fucking with you, by being condescending. I treat people how they treat me sometimes. I'm always willing to shift into more polite conversation though.

Once there was a girl who feel madly in love with me. (Must have dug my big furry feet) I was polite, but not as interested in her as she was in me. She claimed my not associating with her was hurting her deeply and causing her much pain and harm. Should she have gotten a gun and made me be her boy friend ? Should it have been my choice to not associate with her or did I somehow have an obligation to associate with her, because she insisted and claimed she was being harmed ?

What do you think? Do you think that is an apt analogy?

She was being hyperbolic and her grievance was illegitimate. Do you honestly think the same of civil rights for woman and minorities?

 

[Rob Roy]

I think you might have a serious self-awareness problem. My misunderstanding of your ideals is the least of my concerns when it comes to our conversations.



Are you leading to an example of legitimate authority? Arbitrary authority, like weed prohibition, occurs under the status quo, and it is a great example of the flexibility of our system to rectify authority to bring it closer to legitimacy. We are seeing that happen before our very eyes. We have made a ton of progress and proven our system amendable countless times. That vouches for the legitimacy of our legal system.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


This is a really funny post you've put together, no really it is.

Your system is transitioning from one of the biggest scams ever, "the war on drugs" which featured incarcerating, intimidating, beating, dog shooting, anal raping, poisoning and murdering innocent people, not to mention confiscating (stealing) property thru asset forfeiture etc. to some form of insidious legalization (the permission based kind, not the freedom based kind) .

Of course under "legalization" your system will STILL jail people and possibly killing people for having plants in excess of an arbitrary number or for not paying your "authority" extortion tax and licensure money for a granted privilege to grow a couple of plants in their back yard.

I can hear the ringing of the cognitive dissonance bell in your head thru the internet all the way deep into my bone strewn cave and I am laughing uproariously, which sounds like nothing you've ever heard before.

 

[Rob Roy]

What do you think? Do you think that is an apt analogy?

She was being hyperbolic and her grievance was illegitimate. Do you honestly think the same of civil rights for woman and minorities?

No I think I fucked her anyway though. She consented.

 

[Rob Roy]

What do you think? Do you think that is an apt analogy?

She was being hyperbolic and her grievance was illegitimate. Do you honestly think the same of civil rights for woman and minorities?

Okay, your question probably deserves a better answer. I think people who discriminate based on race are doing something I wouldn't do, just as I think obese people are engaging in behaviors I wouldn't do etc.

That still doesn't give me any right to force people to use their OWN bodies or property to serve others or to force them to stop eating poorly, since I have no right to control their bodies or property, only THEY do.

Your argument claims an external authority is greater than a personal authority when it comes to the individuals body and property, which is the same argument prohibitionists, slavers and rapists use. I can't endorse that, why do you?

 

[PCXV]

This is a really funny post you've put together, no really it is.

Your system is transitioning from one of the biggest scams ever, "the war on drugs" which featured incarcerating, intimidating, beating, dog shooting, anal raping, poisoning and murdering innocent people, not to mention confiscating (stealing) property thru asset forfeiture etc. to some form of insidious legalization (the permission based kind, not the freedom based kind) .

Of course under "legalization" your system will STILL jail people and possibly killing people for having plants in excess of an arbitrary number or for not paying your "authority" extortion tax and licensure money for a granted privilege to grow a couple of plants in their back yard.

I can hear the ringing of the cognitive dissonance bell in your head thru the internet all the way deep into my bone strewn cave and I am laughing uproariously, which sounds like nothing you've ever heard before.

No, not really. Sounds about right. Did you have a point? I've already stated I take the good with the bad and it's worth it. Better than your shithole of anarchy.

 

[PCXV]

Okay, your question probably deserves a better answer. I think people who discriminate based on race are doing something I wouldn't do, just as I think obese people are engaging in behaviors I wouldn't do etc.

That still doesn't give me any right to force people to use their OWN bodies or property to serve others or to force them to stop eating poorly, since I have no right to control their bodies or property, only THEY do.

Your argument claims an external authority is greater than a personal authority when it comes to the individuals body and property, which is the same argument prohibitionists, slavers and rapists use. I can't endorse that, why do you?

And now we get back to explicit consent. Citizens chose to live under the law and sacrifice some bodily autonomy, specifically the autonomy to harm others, in exchange for protection, prosperity, etc.

 

[Rob Roy]

And now we get back to explicit consent. Citizens chose to live under the law and sacrifice some bodily autonomy, specifically the autonomy to harm others, in exchange for protection, prosperity, etc.

That statement is what somebody told you, but they were lying to you, since the evidence is otherwise.

 

[Rob Roy]

No, not really. Sounds about right. Did you have a point? I've already stated I take the good with the bad and it's worth it. Better than your shithole of anarchy.

So, you are okay with continuing to fund the racist "war on drugs" and droning brown people overseas so some schmuck like Donald Cheney can increase his wealth, all the while you get to pay for it?

Well, have fun with that.

 

[UncleBuck]

So, you are okay with continuing to fund the racist "war on drugs" and droning brown people overseas so some schmuck like Donald Cheney can increase his wealth, all the while you get to pay for it?

Well, have fun with that.

please stop pretending to care about non-whites. you have made it very clear you are a white supremacist