Examples of GOP Leadership

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
plus you participate in it
I sometimes "participate" under duress, not out of loyalty or voluntary agreement.

I am not complacent and actively seek to free peaceful people. I am an abolitionist.



If you're going to say that my general statement about people not being peaceful is false, by saying some are and some aren't, then surely you must see that anytime a violent person is harming another and is coerced into stopping, then you've acquired peace through coercion, making your statement false as well. If you're going to argue with nonsense angles, then at least button up your own statements a bit.
Consider learning the difference between offensive force and defensive force.

After that, we can work on the rest of your erroneous assumptions.
 

mooray

Well-Known Member
I sometimes "participate" under duress, not out of loyalty or voluntary agreement.

I am not complacent and actively seek to free peaceful people. I am an abolitionist.
You can leave the structure that you reject at any time. You can renounce your citizenship at any time. Nobody is forcing you to participate in society, the society that your mouth rejects, but your actions accept.

Consider learning the difference between offensive force and defensive force.

After that, we can work on the rest of your erroneous assumptions.
Try making the distinction yourself first in one of your statements, instead of getting after me for making general statements and then moving the goalpost when it happens to you.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
You realize where society would be with all this individualism and all the things you use and participate in which wouldn't have existed? Your continued use of them is hypocritical.
You sound confused and pardon me, a little ignorant.

Are you saying that if people somehow gain individual freedom, that means they would somehow be prevented from cooperating peacefully to bring about technological advantages.

Oh my, "without government we'd all be living in caves" !!!
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
You can renounce your citizenship at any time.
Me and the girls hopped out of the hot tub and started a government.

BTW, you're a citizen in it, because our charter pieces of paper and sacred documents claim you are.

Also we voted that you would bring us sandwiches. Get moving citizen!!
 

mooray

Well-Known Member
You sound confused and pardon me, a little ignorant.

Are you saying that if people somehow gain individual freedom, that means they would somehow be prevented from cooperating peacefully to bring about technological advantages.

Oh my, "without government we'd all be living in caves" !!!
Rejecting "masters" and engaging in rob-roy-hyper-individualism would have unquestionably hindered the collective development of infrastructure, infrastructure which I'm sure you enjoy everyday and are enjoying the use of right now. Your actions accept the things your mouth rejects.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Rejecting "masters" and engaging in rob-roy-hyper-individualism would have unquestionably hindered the collective development of infrastructure, infrastructure which I'm sure you enjoy everyday and are enjoying the use of right now. Your actions accept the things your mouth rejects.

Actually, I've grown wings. Might have been the 9th "vaccination" that did it.

I don't need no stinking roads!!!

1621630053002.png
 

mooray

Well-Known Member
"Vaccination" is in quotes because it's a metaphor for when someone in a white gown injected you with fluid..?

This vaccination is taken orally!

This one is more of a topical!

This one....

(i can do nonsense stuff too)
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
"Vaccination" is in quotes because it's a metaphor for when someone in a white gown injected you with fluid..?

This vaccination is taken orally!

This one is more of a topical!

This one....

(i can do nonsense stuff too)
Yes, I know you can do nonsense. You seem to believe that a system which is based in coercion can be the thing which protects people from coercion.

I sometimes put quotes around "vaccine" because the only immunity some bring is to the manufacturers from legal repercussions.
 

mooray

Well-Known Member
There are laws against coercion, so you literally have a system which protects people from coercion. You'll have to further refine your statement in order to state a accurate and/or general truth.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
There are laws against coercion, so you literally have a system which protects people from coercion. You'll have to further refine your statement in order to state a accurate and/or general truth.
There are also laws that support coercion. Also, just because a guy buys his wife a dress on tuesday, doesn't mean he's not an asshole for beating her on wednesday.

"Look, if you don't like living in the country with the most prisoners in the world, you can always leave" . You're a riot, you know that.

Not to mention the entire system is coercion based. Did you check and see what coercion means yet? A couple of posts back you seemed to think using defensive force was somehow the coercion I was talking about. It's not. I'm talking about the initiation of offensive force against peaceful people. I'm against that. Why aren't you ?
 

mooray

Well-Known Member
There are also laws that support coercion. Also, just because a guy buys his wife a dress on tuesday, doesn't mean he's not an asshole for beating her on wednesday.
Exactly, so...AGAIN...it means that your blanket statement is wrong. Soooo, you'll need to further refine it if you want it to be true.

"Look, if you don't like living in the country with the most prisoners in the world, you can always leave" . You're a riot, you know that.
I'm not one to say "love it or leave it" because it's stupid and leaves no room for improvement/refinement, but you're basically yelling at a dog, telling it to become a cat. It will never happen and is completely disconnected with reality. If you *really* want a cat, you're just going to have to get one. If you're not willing to do that, they're you're just all mouth.

Not to mention the entire system is coercion based. Did you check and see what coercion means yet?
It has a pretty wide gamut that stretches from death threats, to being little more than aggressive persuasion.

A couple of posts back you seemed to think using defensive force was somehow the coercion I was talking about. It's not. I'm talking about the initiation of offensive force against peaceful people. I'm against that. Why aren't you ?
I'm for it, but with every word you use, you have something else in mind behind it. For example, I don't consider a person that willfully exists within society, as being peaceful when they don't want to follow the rules that society has created. Therefore, your sentence is faulted from the start.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Exactly, so...AGAIN...it means that your blanket statement is wrong. Soooo, you'll need to further refine it if you want it to be true.
Actually, no. My blanket statement is that coercion based governments are coercive. Just because they sometimes use stolen funds to prevent somebody else from coercing doesn't mean they are not based in coercion.

BTW, where are the fucking sandwiches, citizen? Getting a little horngry here.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
I don't consider a person that willfully exists within society, as being peaceful when they don't want to follow the rules that society has created. Therefore, your sentence is faulted from the start.
Society and government are not the same thing. My rules are simple, try to respect others rights.

I am not anti social or anti society. I am against using initiatory coercion (government as you know it) and rationalizing that somehow that's the only way to creating a peaceful society. That's nonsense...there you go again.

Systems which initiate aggression are already violating any rules a peaceful society might have, therefore literally impossible.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
When was the last time your government threatened you with death?
I don't have a government. We dissolved it and fled back into the hot tub. Made our own fucking sandwiches !


All disobedience to most governments is ultimately a death threat, even if you are a peaceful person. Agree or not ?

So the serious answer to your question is, everyday, multiple times, if the fuckers were my government, which they're not, but the death threats are real.
 

printer

Well-Known Member
Bill Barr: 'Militantly Secularist Government' Caused Public School 'Disaster'
Former Attorney General Bill Barr has condemned what he referred to as the "secular progressive orthodoxy through government-run schools," while accepting the Alliance Defending Freedom’s Edwin Meese Award for ''Originalism and Religious Liberty,'' in Naples, Florida, on Friday.

Barr argued during his speech that "the time has come to admit that the approach of giving militantly secularist government schools a monopoly over publicly funded education has become a disaster.''

He went on to say that ''the greatest threat to religious liberty in America today'' is ''the increasingly militant and extreme secular-progressive climate of our state-run educational system.''

The former attorney general also claimed, ''Religious liberty is not safe in the United States as long as we have the kind of public school system we have, the forced monopoly and the indoctrination of children into these radical secular progressive orthodoxies.''

Barr said that up until the 1970s, the U.S. public school system was ''committed to Judeo-Christian values in the general sense,'' and that ''in the latter part of the 20th century ... the left embarked on a relentless campaign of secularization intent on driving every vestige of religion from the public square.''

He later claimed that ''we’re now seeing an affirmative indoctrination with a secular belief system and worldview that is a substitute for religion and is antithetical to the beliefs and values of traditional God-centered religion.''

Barr said that an example of this is schools teaching modern concepts about gender fluidity and sexuality, claiming that ''this is not established science," but the "moral, psychological, metaphysical dogma of the new orthodoxy."

He also said that his is "a broadsided attack on natural law."

Barr also criticized the subject of critical race theory, which he described as "Marxism substituting race for class antagonism,'' and saying, "it’s monstrous of the state to indoctrinate students into alternate belief systems.''

The former attorney general claimed that ''the tenets of progressive orthodoxy have become a form of religion with all the trappings and hallmarks of a religion. It has its notion of original sin, of salvation. It has its clergy. It has its penance. It has its dogmas, its sensitivity to the whiff of any heresy, and even the burning at the stake, so far only metaphorically.''

He then said, ''If secular-progressivism indeed occupies the same place as a religion — and by all appearances it does — then how is it constitutional to have state-run schools fervently devoted to teaching little else?''

Barr went on to argue in favor of universal school choice, saying, ''public funding of education does not require that instruction must be delivered by means of government-operated schools. The alternative is to have public funds travel with each student, allowing the student and the parents to choose the school.''

"we’re now seeing an affirmative indoctrination with a secular belief system and worldview that is a substitute for religion and is antithetical to the beliefs and values of traditional God-centered religion"

In colloquial language, can we say belief in science?
 

mooray

Well-Known Member
Society and government are not the same thing.
I know they're not. I'm saying that our society has created a type of government from the very beginning of the creation of the US. It's a government that you dislike, and that's totally fine. The point is, you're never going to change the framework of this nation.

My rules are simple, try to respect others rights.
Since we're US citizens in a country founded on rights, I have to assume that you're referring to constitutional rights. It's great that you respect the rights of others, which of course includes the creation and ongoing support for a framework you reject. Not so different from the whole "communism" thing in the 50's, it was only those that truly understood our constitutional rights that supported them.

I am not anti social or anti society. I am against using initiatory coercion (government as you know it) and rationalizing that somehow that's the only way to creating a peaceful society. That's nonsense...there you go again.
Okay....wait, so it's the combination? I'm assuming you know how to use and/or, so it appears that your major complaint is the combination of your kooky perception of gov't while being combined with it being the only way to create a peaceful society? Well shit, that's easy, I'm sure there are other ways to create a peaceful society. I don't know them and I disagree with your take on society, but I'd be a fool to think our current way is the only way. I certainly don't want what you want, but apparently it doesn't really matter as long as I recognize that our way isn't the only way, which I do.

Systems which initiate aggression are already violating any rules a peaceful society might have, therefore literally impossible.
Initiate? If society decides that we shouldn't drive faster than 65mph and creates a group to enforce that rule, and some narcissist thinks they're special and doesn't need to follow those rules, then they're the one initiating conflict.
 
Top