Serious, moderate discussion about Wesley Snipes
Jackne...@gmail.com
suggestion that they might be wrong by calling me a "liar,"
challenging the notion that people can build roads without being
robbed, and ignoring questions that expose the contradictions in their
belief in an imaginary higher "authority." Here are a few of them:
1) Who determines right and wrong for you:
__a) You
__b) Someone else?
2) Who SHOULD determine right and wrong for you:
__a) You
__b) Someone else? Be specific: ______________
3) Whose judgment did you use to choose your answers?
__a) Yours
__b) Someone else's?
4) Under what circumstances would you be obligated to contradict your
own judgment of the right thing to do and do what someone else tells
you?
5) Can the "law" (or anything else, for that matter) place an
obligation on you to do something your own judgment would tell you is
the WRONG thing to do?
6) Pick one - a) "I have a moral obligation to obey the commandments
of politicians (i.e., the "law");" b) "I have no obligation to obey
the commands of a bunch of people I don't even know."
7) Do we the people have equal rights?
8) If we humans all have equal rights, where did politicians get the
right to tax the rest of us?
9) Do we all have the same right to tax each other that politicians
have?
10) If we humans all have equal rights, where did politicians get the
right to make laws for the rest of us?
11) Do we all have the same right to issue laws that politicians have?
12) How is 6,000,000,000 individuals, each one having the RIGHT to tax
all the others, and make laws for them, any different from anarchy?
13) If the majority rules, why is George Bush the president?
14) Can the majority ever be wrong?
15) If the majority rules, what happens if the majority is wrong?
16) If the majority is WRONG, what obligation do I have to obey them,
and why should I?
17) a) Does current statutory federal law derive its authority from
the Constitution?
b) Was the Constitution written and supported by people who
openly advocated and carried out an "illegal" forcible overthrow of
the prior "government"?
18) In light of 'a' and 'b,' do you see anything slightly ironic
about claiming that I am now obligated to obey politician scribbles
(i.e. "law")?
Feel free to squirm, evade, gnash your teeth.
--Jackney Sneeb
Jackne...@gmail.com
wrote:
> > Red herring. Irrelevant. Baseless assertion.
> LMAO
> I'm that close to the truth, eh?
There was once a philosophy student who, wanting to make sure he got a
good grade on his first assignment, took the draft of his essay to his
professor to critique.
"Am I right?" the student asked.
The professor read through the essay and handed it back to him, saying
"Son - you're not even wrong yet."
--Jackney Sneeb
"Every once in a while a CPA will stumble onto the truth, then pick
himself up and continue on his way as if nothing had happened."
Paul Thomas, CPA
<Jackne...@gmail.com> wrote
> The Might-Makes-Right Brigade has seen fit to rage against the
> suggestion that they might be wrong by calling me a "liar,"
You are a liar Malloy.
You create words and place them in your opponents mouth as if that makes it
what they said.
> challenging the notion that people can
> build roads without being robbed,
Hey asswipe. You need to notice that those "private" roads are not for
public use, and even if they can be accessed by a limited number of the
public, the dirt under those private roads are subject to property tax by
the government - AND - the owners who use those private roads are required
to pay a fee on a regular basis to maintain those private roads.
You've never lived in a gated community - save for the gated military base
where public tax dollars pay for everything - where your HOA dues, not
unlike taxes at all, help pay for the construction and maintainence of the
infrastructure of the roads, pool, tennis courts, clubhouse, nature trails,
and other common areas.
What a maroon you are.
Jackne...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <JackneySn...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > The Might-Makes-Right Brigade has seen fit to rage against the
> > suggestion that they might be wrong by calling me a "liar,"
> You are a liar Malloy.
See?
> You create words and place them in your opponents mouth as if that makes it
> what they said.
Show me where I put the words "might makes right" in ed senter's
mouth.
> > challenging the notion that people can
> > build roads without being robbed,
>
> Hey asswipe. You need to notice that those "private" roads are not for
> public use,
Irrelevant to your question. You asked me to show you evidence that
roads can be built without armed robbery. That's all.
> What a maroon you are.
As I said, feel free to squirm, evade, gnash your teeth . . .
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Feel free to squirm, evade, gnash your teeth.
> --Jackney Sneeb
Feel free to spout irrelevant rhetoric and lies because that is your
nature.
IF you really are interested in a serious discussion,
Do individuals get along at all times?
Will individuals conduct their lives pursuant to their own self-
serving interests?
What happens when individual self interests collide with others?
Does anarchy provide a solution to conflict?
Does govt at least try?
Paul Thomas, CPA
Jackne...@gmail.com
> IF you really are interested in a serious discussion,
> Do individuals get along at all times?
Obviously not.
> Will individuals conduct their lives pursuant to their own self-
> serving interests?
Absolutely.
> What happens when individual self interests collide with others?
Conflict.
> Does anarchy provide a solution to conflict?
No. And the presence of conflict is evidence that anarchy in fact
exists.
> Does govt at least try?
No. If anything, the state (if that's what you mean by 'govt') makes
conflict far more destructive than it would otherwise be. Adding
armed forces supplied with machineguns, tanks, artillery, and atomic
bombs makes conflict infinitely more dangerous than just two yokels
beating each other up over a disagreement.
Think of the worst lone serial killer in history. Without the state
behind him, how many people can he kill? Now review what happens when
he gets into a position of power, with an entire army and willing, law-
abiding "citizens" dutifully helping him kill people. I don't have
to name the most obvious examples from the last century - your fellow
collaborator Paul Thomas doesn't like me bad-mouthing his heroes.
--Jackney Sneeb
Paul Thomas, CPA
<Jackne...@gmail.com> wrote
> Adding armed forces supplied with machineguns,
> tanks, artillery, and atomic bombs makes conflict
> infinitely more dangerous than just two yokels
> beating each other up over a disagreement.
And yet, the victor decides what is "right".
C'mon. Come beat me up and prove how right I am.
--
Two Reasons Why It's So Hard To Solve A Redneck Murder:
1. All the DNA is the same.
2. There are no dental records.
--------------------------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Watkinsville, Georgia
Jackne...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <JackneySn...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > See?
>
> I see you are a liar.
As I said, feel free to squirm, evade, gnash your teeth . . .
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 7, 11:59 am, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > IF you really are interested in a serious discussion,
> > Do individuals get along at all times?
>
> Obviously not.
>
> > Will individuals conduct their lives pursuant to their own self-
> > serving interests?
>
> Absolutely.
>
> > What happens when individual self interests collide with others?
>
> Conflict.
>
> > Does anarchy provide a solution to conflict?
>
> No. And the presence of conflict is evidence that anarchy in fact
> exists.
>
Now you are redefining 'anarchy'. That's known as equivocation which
is a fallacy.
No, the presence of conflict is evidence of human behavior. So quit
your lying.
> > Does govt at least try?
>
> No. If anything, the state (if that's what you mean by 'govt') makes
> conflict far more destructive than it would otherwise be. Adding
> armed forces supplied with machineguns, tanks, artillery, and atomic
> bombs makes conflict infinitely more dangerous than just two yokels
> beating each other up over a disagreement.
>
What difference does it make whether people kill each other with
sticks and stones or bombs? It is all human behavior.
> Think of the worst lone serial killer in history. Without the state
> behind him, how many people can he kill? Now review what happens when
> he gets into a position of power, with an entire army and willing, law-
> abiding "citizens" dutifully helping him kill people. I don't have
> to name the most obvious examples from the last century - your fellow
> collaborator Paul Thomas doesn't like me bad-mouthing his heroes.
> --Jackney Sneeb
Do you think anarchy keeps lunatics from ganging up with other
lunatics?
LMAO.
NO, the issue boils down to good govt vs. bad govt.
Good govt does not change human behavior. That ain't going to happen.
Good govt provides a remedy for bad behavior in a reasonable and just
manner. That is all it can do.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> > No. And the presence of conflict is evidence that anarchy in fact
> > exists.
> Now you are redefining 'anarchy'. That's known as equivocation which
> is a fallacy.
Where? I don't see any redefinition. Anarchy exists. It always has,
always will. Does it include conflict? Yes. I've never posted
otherwise.
PS - try to stay away from accusing me of using fallacies you don't
understand your own self.
> > > Does govt at least try?
> > No. If anything, the state (if that's what you mean by 'govt') makes
> > conflict far more destructive than it would otherwise be. Adding
> > armed forces supplied with machineguns, tanks, artillery, and atomic
> > bombs makes conflict infinitely more dangerous than just two yokels
> > beating each other up over a disagreement.
>
> What difference does it make whether people kill each other with
> sticks and stones or bombs? It is all human behavior.
See below:
Think of the worst lone serial killer in history. Without the state
behind him, how many people can he kill? Now review what happens when
he gets into a position of power, with an entire army and willing, law-
abiding "citizens" dutifully helping him kill people. I don't have
to name the most obvious examples from the last century - your fellow
collaborator Paul Thomas doesn't like me bad-mouthing his heroes.
--Jackney Sneeb
>
> Do you think anarchy keeps lunatics from ganging up with other
> lunatics?
No. And that's exactly what the state is.
> NO, the issue boils down to good govt vs. bad govt.
There's no such thing as an objective "good" in your philosophy.
Remember?
--Jackney Sneeb
Paul Thomas, CPA
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 9, 7:59 am, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > No. And the presence of conflict is evidence that anarchy in fact
> > > exists.
> > Now you are redefining 'anarchy'. That's known as equivocation which
> > is a fallacy.
>
> Where? I don't see any redefinition. Anarchy exists. It always has,
> always will. Does it include conflict? Yes. I've never posted
> otherwise.
> PS - try to stay away from accusing me of using fallacies you don't
> understand your own self.
>
Anarchy is the absence of govt.
Conflict exists within anarchy and govt systems.
So conflict is not evidence of anarchy unless you are changing the
definition.
> > > > Does govt at least try?
> > > No. If anything, the state (if that's what you mean by 'govt') makes
> > > conflict far more destructive than it would otherwise be. Adding
> > > armed forces supplied with machineguns, tanks, artillery, and atomic
> > > bombs makes conflict infinitely more dangerous than just two yokels
> > > beating each other up over a disagreement.
> >
> > What difference does it make whether people kill each other with
> > sticks and stones or bombs? It is all human behavior.
>
> See below:
>
> Think of the worst lone serial killer in history. Without the state
> behind him, how many people can he kill? Now review what happens when
> he gets into a position of power, with an entire army and willing, law-
> abiding "citizens" dutifully helping him kill people. I don't have
> to name the most obvious examples from the last century - your fellow
> collaborator Paul Thomas doesn't like me bad-mouthing his heroes.
> --Jackney Sneeb
> >
> > Do you think anarchy keeps lunatics from ganging up with other
> > lunatics?
>
> No.
So your characterization of "two yokels beating up each other over a
disagreement" was crap.
> And that's exactly what the state is.
>
Would you gang up with other like minded individuals to increase your
chance of survival or would you just sit back and get squashed?
> > NO, the issue boils down to good govt vs. bad govt.
>
> There's no such thing as an objective "good" in your philosophy.
>
It is not a philosophy, numbnut, it is an observation.
Why did you snip my meaning of "good"? Because your argument is so
weak you must infer other meanings to clear words?
Human behavior ain't going to change. Good govt provides a remedy for
conflict.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> Anarchy is the absence of govt.
That's right. And "government" (as most state-worshippers define it)
is a myth. Ergo, anarchy exists.
> > > What difference does it make whether people kill each other with
> > > sticks and stones or bombs? It is all human behavior.
>
> > See below:
>
> > Think of the worst lone serial killer in history. Without the state
> > behind him, how many people can he kill? Now review what happens when
> > he gets into a position of power, with an entire army and willing, law-
> > abiding "citizens" dutifully helping him kill people. I don't have
> > to name the most obvious examples from the last century - your fellow
> > collaborator Paul Thomas doesn't like me bad-mouthing his heroes.
> > --Jackney Sneeb
Your non-response is noted.
> > > Do you think anarchy keeps lunatics from ganging up with other
> > > lunatics?
> > No.
> So your characterization of "two yokels beating up each other over a
> disagreement" was crap.
Huh? Mind explaining how THAT comment is relevant?
> > And that's exactly what the state is.
> Would you gang up with other like minded individuals to increase your
> chance of survival or would you just sit back and get squashed?
False choice. I don't gang up on you, and you don't gang up on me.
That's the basis for civilization. The state is the opposite of that.
> > > NO, the issue boils down to good govt vs. bad govt.
> > There's no such thing as an objective "good" in your philosophy.
> It is not a philosophy, numbnut, it is an observation.
You're right, it's not much of a philosophy.
> Why did you snip my meaning of "good"?
Because you're supposed to be a relativist, aren't you? Don't you say
over and over there is no objective good or bad, right or wrong?
> Because your argument is so
> weak you must infer other meanings to clear words?
Whose judgment do you use to declare a gang of lawyers, thugs, and con
men as "good?"
> Human behavior ain't going to change. Good govt provides a remedy for
> conflict.
Too bad there's no such thing. Conflict exists. Anarchy, too.
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 9, 8:14 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Anarchy is the absence of govt.
>
> That's right. And "government" (as most state-worshippers define it)
> is a myth. Ergo, anarchy exists.
>
Why are you now delusional?
>
>
> > > > What difference does it make whether people kill each other with
> > > > sticks and stones or bombs? It is all human behavior.
> >
> > > See below:
> >
> > > Think of the worst lone serial killer in history. Without the state
> > > behind him, how many people can he kill? Now review what happens when
> > > he gets into a position of power, with an entire army and willing, law-
> > > abiding "citizens" dutifully helping him kill people. I don't have
> > > to name the most obvious examples from the last century - your fellow
> > > collaborator Paul Thomas doesn't like me bad-mouthing his heroes.
> > > --Jackney Sneeb
>
> Your non-response is noted.
>
You are just not paying attention.
> > > > Do you think anarchy keeps lunatics from ganging up with other
> > > > lunatics?
> > > No.
> > So your characterization of "two yokels beating up each other over a
> > disagreement" was crap.
>
> Huh? Mind explaining how THAT comment is relevant?
>
Your position that if it wasn't for the "state", it would be just two
yokels fighting was bogus.
The fact is individuals join up with other individuals to increase
their strength. That is the history of man. It is what has made man
the most dominant animal on the planet.
To argue against a "state" or any other grouping of men is ludicrous.
You are either going to be joining one of these groups (which you
have), or you are going to be living in the wilderness (if such a
thing even exists anymore).
> > > And that's exactly what the state is.
> > Would you gang up with other like minded individuals to increase your
> > chance of survival or would you just sit back and get squashed?
>
> False choice. I don't gang up on you, and you don't gang up on me.
> That's the basis for civilization. The state is the opposite of that.
>
Too bad, no such "civilization" has existed without a structure of
govt.
> > > > NO, the issue boils down to good govt vs. bad govt.
> > > There's no such thing as an objective "good" in your philosophy.
> > It is not a philosophy, numbnut, it is an observation.
>
> You're right, it's not much of a philosophy.
>
Now you are an ignorant smartass.
> > Why did you snip my meaning of "good"?
>
> Because you're supposed to be a relativist, aren't you? Don't you say
> over and over there is no objective good or bad, right or wrong?
>
All morality is subjective. But I am not a relativist.
> > Because your argument is so
> > weak you must infer other meanings to clear words?
>
> Whose judgment do you use to declare a gang of lawyers, thugs, and con
> men as "good?"
>
I have never said any man or group of men were "good". Maybe I should
have said PROPER govt so you can not twist my meanings and lose
context.
> > Human behavior ain't going to change. Good govt provides a remedy for
> > conflict.
>
> Too bad there's no such thing. Conflict exists. Anarchy, too.
> --Jackney Sneeb
Since you neglected to define what you meant by "anarchy" above, your
words have no power, little boy malloy.
Conflict exists and govt is all around you.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> All morality is subjective. But I am not a relativist.
That bizarre comment exemplifies the contradictions inherent in your
delusion.
> I have never said any man or group of men were "good".
ed senter, July 9, 7:59 PM: "Good govt provides a remedy . . ." What
is "govt" made of - aardvarks?
> Maybe I should
> have said PROPER govt so you can not twist my meanings and lose
> context.
Maybe if you dropped the contradictions, your comments might make some
sense. Quoting a state-worshipper's own words is "twisting" them, in
ed senter's Orwellian doublethink land. Whether you call it "good" or
"proper" or any other SUBJECTIVE (i.e., your OWN PERSONAL judgment)
description, you're still trying to wiggle out of admitting you use
YOUR OWN JUDGMENT to impose YOUR OWN IDEA of "good govt" on everyone.
> > > NO, the issue boils down to good govt vs. bad govt.
> > There's no such thing as an objective "good" in your philosophy.
There's no such thing as objective "good government" as long as you
insist there's no such thing as objective right and wrong, good and
bad.
> > > Human behavior ain't going to change. Good govt provides a remedy for
> > > conflict.
>
> > Too bad there's no such thing. Conflict exists. Anarchy, too.
> > --Jackney Sneeb
>
> Since you neglected to define what you meant by "anarchy" above, your
Anarchy: the absence of "government."
> words have no power, little boy malloy.
> Conflict exists and govt is all around you.
Would conflict exist all over the place if your idea of "good
government " existed?
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 10, 4:51 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > All morality is subjective. But I am not a relativist.
>
> That bizarre comment exemplifies the contradictions inherent in your
> delusion.
>
Is that some more of your esoteric logic?
> > I have never said any man or group of men were "good".
>
> ed senter, July 9, 7:59 PM: "Good govt provides a remedy . . ." What
> is "govt" made of - aardvarks?
>
> > Maybe I should
> > have said PROPER govt so you can not twist my meanings and lose
> > context.
>
> Maybe if you dropped the contradictions, your comments might make some
> sense.
Maybe if you would quit using your esoteric "logic", you would make
some sense.
> Quoting a state-worshipper's own words is "twisting" them, in
> ed senter's Orwellian doublethink land.
Quoting statements out of context is why you are a liar.
> Whether you call it "good" or
> "proper" or any other SUBJECTIVE (i.e., your OWN PERSONAL judgment)
> description, you're still trying to wiggle out of admitting you use
> YOUR OWN JUDGMENT to impose YOUR OWN IDEA of "good govt" on everyone.
>
It is telling how you NEVER seem to make a point.
> > > > NO, the issue boils down to good govt vs. bad govt.
> > > There's no such thing as an objective "good" in your philosophy.
>
> There's no such thing as objective "good government" as long as you
> insist there's no such thing as objective right and wrong, good and
> bad.
>
Right and wrong are value judgments. They are entirely personal.
They can't be objective.
However, govt is a scientific fact based upon facts within human
behavior. People don't get along. That is an objective fact.
People form groups and that is an objective fact. These groups have
rules and we call that govt. Govts that adhere to the fact that
people inevitably experience conflict can duly be deemed PROPER.
> > > > Human behavior ain't going to change. Good govt provides a remedy for
> > > > conflict.
> >
> > > Too bad there's no such thing. Conflict exists. Anarchy, too.
> > > --Jackney Sneeb
> >
> > Since you neglected to define what you meant by "anarchy" above, your
>
> Anarchy: the absence of "government."
>
> > words have no power, little boy malloy.
> > Conflict exists and govt is all around you.
>
> Would conflict exist all over the place if your idea of "good
> government " existed?
>
LMAO, can't you pay attention.
Good/proper govt provides remedies for conflict. Conflict is
inevitable.
Bad/improper govt tries to conform people with preconceived results.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> Is that some more of your esoteric logic?
> Maybe if you would quit using your esoteric "logic", you would make
> some sense.
What's esoteric about logic?
> > Quoting a state-worshipper's own words is "twisting" them, in
> > ed senter's Orwellian doublethink land.
> Quoting statements out of context is why you are a liar.
Show me the context that shows you meant something other than what you
said. I dare you. I double dare you.
> > Whether you call it "good" or
> > "proper" or any other SUBJECTIVE (i.e., your OWN PERSONAL judgment)
> > description, you're still trying to wiggle out of admitting you use
> > YOUR OWN JUDGMENT to impose YOUR OWN IDEA of "good govt" on everyone.
> It is telling how you NEVER seem to make a point.
I am asking you how you can believe there is no such thing as
objective right or wrong, good or bad, and then insist that there is
such a thing as objectively "good government."
> Right and wrong are value judgments. They are entirely personal.
> They can't be objective.
Then why would you want to subordinate your own subjective idea of
right and wrong to a bunch of subjective other people - the worst
kind, politicians - to make commandments for you to obey?
> However, govt is a scientific fact based upon facts within human
> behavior. People don't get along. That is an objective fact.
And "government" solves this problem? Example: Iraq.
> People form groups and that is an objective fact. These groups have
> rules and we call that govt. Govts that adhere to the fact that
> people inevitably experience conflict can duly be deemed PROPER.
1) Again, you're using another subjective term - "proper" - in place
of right, or good. No matter what subjective term you come up with,
you're stuck with trying to say that there can be an objectively
"good" agent of making everyone adhere to "good" judgment, despite the
obvious fact that a) no such agency exists, and b) people continue to
display bad judgment in many ways all over the world.
2) "Govts that adhere to the fact that people inevitably experience
conflict can duly be deemed PROPER." This is just plain nonsense.
Who deems it "proper"? How does a "govt" adhere to the fact that
people experience conflict? What does "adhere" mean in this context?
How would adhering to the fact that there is conflict make anyone or
anything "proper"? "Jack adheres to the fact that people experience
conflict. Therefore Jack is proper." Huh???
> > > > > Human behavior ain't going to change. Good govt provides a remedy for
> > > > > conflict.
>
> > > > Too bad there's no such thing. Conflict exists. Anarchy, too.
> > > > --Jackney Sneeb
>
> > > Since you neglected to define what you meant by "anarchy" above, your
>
> > Anarchy: the absence of "government."
>
> > > words have no power, little boy malloy.
> > > Conflict exists and govt is all around you.
>
> > Would conflict exist all over the place if your idea of "good
> > government " existed?
>
> LMAO, can't you pay attention.
> Good/proper govt provides remedies for conflict. Conflict is
> inevitable.
> Bad/improper govt tries to conform people with preconceived results.
What!??? Answer the question: Would conflict exist all over the place
if "good government " existed? Would conflict exist all over the
place if "proper government " existed? It doesn't matter that you
can't answer the question. It answers itself. You claim "proper
government" adheres to the fact that people experience conflict, by
which I must assume you mean "proper government" is somehow a remedy
for conflict.
a) "people experience conflict."
b) to remedy that we need a proper government.
c) people continue to experience conflict.
d) therefore, "proper government" exists.
'd' DOES NOT FOLLOW from a, b, and c.
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 11, 8:05 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Is that some more of your esoteric logic?
> > Maybe if you would quit using your esoteric "logic", you would make
> > some sense.
>
> What's esoteric about logic?
>
Correction: "What's esoteric about MY logic?"
YOUR "logic" is based on YOUR personal definition.
> > > Quoting a state-worshipper's own words is "twisting" them, in
> > > ed senter's Orwellian doublethink land.
> > Quoting statements out of context is why you are a liar.
>
> Show me the context that shows you meant something other than what you
> said. I dare you. I double dare you.
>
I used it in the context of good govt vs. bad govt. It wasn't meant
to be a moral interpretation.
> > > Whether you call it "good" or
> > > "proper" or any other SUBJECTIVE (i.e., your OWN PERSONAL judgment)
> > > description, you're still trying to wiggle out of admitting you use
> > > YOUR OWN JUDGMENT to impose YOUR OWN IDEA of "good govt" on everyone.
> > It is telling how you NEVER seem to make a point.
>
> I am asking you how you can believe there is no such thing as
> objective right or wrong, good or bad, and then insist that there is
> such a thing as objectively "good government."
>
Because I am not making a moral judgment. I am making an objective
observation that everyone else can also observe.
> > Right and wrong are value judgments. They are entirely personal.
> > They can't be objective.
>
> Then why would you want to subordinate your own subjective idea of
> right and wrong to a bunch of subjective other people - the worst
> kind, politicians - to make commandments for you to obey?
>
The only way to do that would be to get a lobotomy and be an
automaton. Since I haven't done that, you are wrong.
> > However, govt is a scientific fact based upon facts within human
> > behavior. People don't get along. That is an objective fact.
>
> And "government" solves this problem? Example: Iraq.
>
Govt can't take away the passion. All it can do is force conformity
with the dictates of reason and justice.
> > People form groups and that is an objective fact. These groups have
> > rules and we call that govt. Govts that adhere to the fact that
> > people inevitably experience conflict can duly be deemed PROPER.
>
> 1) Again, you're using another subjective term - "proper" - in place
> of right, or good. No matter what subjective term you come up with,
> you're stuck with trying to say that there can be an objectively
> "good" agent of making everyone adhere to "good" judgment, despite the
> obvious fact that a) no such agency exists, and b) people continue to
> display bad judgment in many ways all over the world.
>
> 2) "Govts that adhere to the fact that people inevitably experience
> conflict can duly be deemed PROPER." This is just plain nonsense.
> Who deems it "proper"? How does a "govt" adhere to the fact that
> people experience conflict? What does "adhere" mean in this context?
> How would adhering to the fact that there is conflict make anyone or
> anything "proper"? "Jack adheres to the fact that people experience
> conflict. Therefore Jack is proper." Huh???
>
Jack believes anyone who "believes" in govt must park their brain at
the entrance and become an automaton. Therefore, Jack is delusional.
Get it?
No shit, sherlock.
Just like a doctor, all govt can do is treat the symptoms.
The disease is people.
The only way to cure the disease is to take away the passion. Give
people a lobotomy and make them automatons.
So this is the logic:
a) people experience conflict
b) proper govt provides a remedy for conflict (resolves the dispute)
c) people continue to experience conflict
d) therefore, proper govt continues to provide a remedy for the
conflict.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> Correction: "What's esoteric about MY logic?"
> YOUR "logic" is based on YOUR personal definition.
How is that definition inconsistent with logic?
> > > > Quoting a state-worshipper's own words is "twisting" them, in
> > > > ed senter's Orwellian doublethink land.
> > > Quoting statements out of context is why you are a liar.
>
> > Show me the context that shows you meant something other than what you
> > said. I dare you. I double dare you.
>
> I used it in the context of good govt vs. bad govt. It wasn't meant
> to be a moral interpretation.
How is "good" versus "bad" DIFFERENT from a moral interpretation?
How is YOUR use of "good" NOT a purely subjective use, while everyone
else's is?
> Because I am not making a moral judgment. I am making an objective
> observation that everyone else can also observe.
Absolutely amazing - you think YOU are the sole arbiter of
"OBJECTIVITY" in the world. ed senter alone determines what is
"objectively good" now, eh?
> The only way to do that would be to get a lobotomy and be an
> automaton. Since I haven't done that, you are wrong.
You lobotomized yourself when you turned your will and your life over
to the protection and care of your beloved politicians.
> Govt can't take away the passion. All it can do is force conformity
> with the dictates of reason and justice.
Correction: All it can do is ATTEMPT to force conformity with the
dictates of fallible, humans - politicians. How is that different
from anarchy? We're back to the contradiction again. Why would you
want to subordinate your own subjective idea of right and wrong to a
bunch of subjective other people - the worst kind, politicians - to
make commandments for you to obey?
> > > People form groups and that is an objective fact. These groups have
> > > rules and we call that govt. Govts that adhere to the fact that
> > > people inevitably experience conflict can duly be deemed PROPER.
>
> > 1) Again, you're using another subjective term - "proper" - in place
> > of right, or good. No matter what subjective term you come up with,
> > you're stuck with trying to say that there can be an objectively
> > "good" agent of making everyone adhere to "good" judgment, despite the
> > obvious fact that a) no such agency exists, and b) people continue to
> > display bad judgment in many ways all over the world.
>
> > 2) "Govts that adhere to the fact that people inevitably experience
> > conflict can duly be deemed PROPER." This is just plain nonsense.
> > Who deems it "proper"? How does a "govt" adhere to the fact that
> > people experience conflict? What does "adhere" mean in this context?
> > How would adhering to the fact that there is conflict make anyone or
> > anything "proper"? "Jack adheres to the fact that people experience
> > conflict. Therefore Jack is proper." Huh???
>
> Jack believes anyone who "believes" in govt must park their brain at
> the entrance and become an automaton. Therefore, Jack is delusional.
> Get it?
No. Jack is right. If you put your brain in park and ask someone
else to do your thinking for you, you are delusional.
Answer the question: How does it follow that "government" is proper
because it adheres to the fact that conflict exists?
And that's why you volunteered for the lobotomy.
> So this is the logic:
> a) people experience conflict
> b) proper govt provides a remedy for conflict (resolves the dispute)
'b' is a fallacy because "proper" is a subjective term that has no
referent in objective reality. You make up your own definition of
"proper."
> c) people continue to experience conflict
In other words, despite the attempt to create a "government" to
resolve the conflict, anarchy still exists. Your own brand of logic
still comes to the same conclusion as mine.
> d) therefore, proper govt continues to provide a remedy for the
> conflict.
LOL. e) people continue to experience conflict f) anarchy still
exists g) govt continues to provide a remedy for the conflict h)
people continue to experience conflict i) anarchy still exists j)
govt continues to provide a remedy for the conflict k) anarchy still
exists . . .ad infinitum. Meanwhile, "government" remedies conflict
by robbing, kidnapping, and slaughtering millions of people. Nice
result of a self-contradictory delusion. Would WWII have happened if
"government" existed?
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 12, 5:50 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Correction: "What's esoteric about MY logic?"
> > YOUR "logic" is based on YOUR personal definition.
>
> How is that definition inconsistent with logic?
>
You aren't logical.
Logic examines HOW one draws a conclusion. -If this, then that.
You want to examine the conclusion itself as if it stood alone, then
base that on faulty premises.
> > > > > Quoting a state-worshipper's own words is "twisting" them, in
> > > > > ed senter's Orwellian doublethink land.
> > > > Quoting statements out of context is why you are a liar.
> >
> > > Show me the context that shows you meant something other than what you
> > > said. I dare you. I double dare you.
> >
> > I used it in the context of good govt vs. bad govt. It wasn't meant
> > to be a moral interpretation.
>
> How is "good" versus "bad" DIFFERENT from a moral interpretation?
> How is YOUR use of "good" NOT a purely subjective use, while everyone
> else's is?
>
Because it is not based on values. It is not a value judgment.
For instance, logic is the science of good and bad reasoning. 'Good
and bad' is used in the sense of valid and faulty. Those are not
value judgments.
If I say a doctor treats his patience using good science. I am not
making a value judgment about the science used. I am saying the
science is valid as opposed to what a witch doctor might use with
potions and spells.
> > Because I am not making a moral judgment. I am making an objective
> > observation that everyone else can also observe.
>
> Absolutely amazing - you think YOU are the sole arbiter of
> "OBJECTIVITY" in the world. ed senter alone determines what is
> "objectively good" now, eh?
>
It is amazing how all your arguments rely upon semantics.
> > The only way to do that would be to get a lobotomy and be an
> > automaton. Since I haven't done that, you are wrong.
>
> You lobotomized yourself when you turned your will and your life over
> to the protection and care of your beloved politicians.
>
See, you are trying to base your argument on a faulty premise.
> > Govt can't take away the passion. All it can do is force conformity
> > with the dictates of reason and justice.
>
> Correction: All it can do is ATTEMPT to force conformity with the
> dictates of fallible, humans - politicians.
Another faulty premise. Can't you stop , little boy malloy?
> How is that different
> from anarchy?
How is little boy malloy different than a liar?
> We're back to the contradiction again. Why would you
> want to subordinate your own subjective idea of right and wrong to a
> bunch of subjective other people - the worst kind, politicians - to
> make commandments for you to obey?
>
I don't do that, numbnut.
> > > > People form groups and that is an objective fact. These groups have
> > > > rules and we call that govt. Govts that adhere to the fact that
> > > > people inevitably experience conflict can duly be deemed PROPER.
> >
> > > 1) Again, you're using another subjective term - "proper" - in place
> > > of right, or good. No matter what subjective term you come up with,
> > > you're stuck with trying to say that there can be an objectively
> > > "good" agent of making everyone adhere to "good" judgment, despite the
> > > obvious fact that a) no such agency exists, and b) people continue to
> > > display bad judgment in many ways all over the world.
> >
> > > 2) "Govts that adhere to the fact that people inevitably experience
> > > conflict can duly be deemed PROPER." This is just plain nonsense.
> > > Who deems it "proper"? How does a "govt" adhere to the fact that
> > > people experience conflict? What does "adhere" mean in this context?
> > > How would adhering to the fact that there is conflict make anyone or
> > > anything "proper"? "Jack adheres to the fact that people experience
> > > conflict. Therefore Jack is proper." Huh???
> >
> > Jack believes anyone who "believes" in govt must park their brain at
> > the entrance and become an automaton. Therefore, Jack is delusional.
> > Get it?
>
> No. Jack is right. If you put your brain in park and ask someone
> else to do your thinking for you, you are delusional.
>
If you truly believe that, getting a driver's license isn't just your
"get out of jail free card". It makes you insane.
> Answer the question: How does it follow that "government" is proper
> because it adheres to the fact that conflict exists?
>
a) it is axiomatic that people have disputes with other people
b) the purpose of govt is to resolve disputes
c) proper govt serves its stated purpose
It is statements like that that make you a liar.
Is conflict a symptom or is it the disease?
Are there people who NEVER experience conflict?
If you are honest, that is the basis of your belief system.
"There is conflict not because people are flawed. There is conflict
because of the people who are flawed."
> > So this is the logic:
> > a) people experience conflict
> > b) proper govt provides a remedy for conflict (resolves the dispute)
>
> 'b' is a fallacy because "proper" is a subjective term that has no
> referent in objective reality. You make up your own definition of
> "proper."
>
I am using the dictionary meaning. It isn't a "fallacy". You are
challenging the premise.
> > c) people continue to experience conflict
>
> In other words, despite the attempt to create a "government" to
> resolve the conflict, anarchy still exists. Your own brand of logic
> still comes to the same conclusion as mine.
>
You are limiting the meaning of "anarchy" to conflict. That's stupid.
You don't resolve conflict b eliminating the conflict. You resolve
conflict by providing a remedy for when conflict happens.
> > d) therefore, proper govt continues to provide a remedy for the
> > conflict.
>
> LOL. e) people continue to experience conflict f) anarchy still
> exists g) govt continues to provide a remedy for the conflict h)
> people continue to experience conflict i) anarchy still exists j)
> govt continues to provide a remedy for the conflict k) anarchy still
> exists . . .ad infinitum. Meanwhile, "government" remedies conflict
> by robbing, kidnapping, and slaughtering millions of people. Nice
> result of a self-contradictory delusion. Would WWII have happened if
> "government" existed?
> --Jackney Sneeb
As explained above, you are just stupid.
All you have are semantics, lies, and hate, little boy malloy.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> JackneySn...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 5:50 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > Correction: "What's esoteric about MY logic?"
> > > YOUR "logic" is based on YOUR personal definition.
> > How is that definition inconsistent with logic?
> You aren't logical.
Well, another question left unanswered.
> Logic examines HOW one draws a conclusion. -If this, then that.
If might makes right is a fallacy (it is - it's called Argumentum ad
Baculum, a notorious fallacy: "The ad baculum contains implicitly or
explicitly a threat. Behind this threat is often the idea that in the
end, 'Might makes right'." http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/force.html
), then your entire philosophy is based on faulty reasoning.
> You want to examine the conclusion itself as if it stood alone, then
> base that on faulty premises.
Faulty premise: "Might makes right."
>
> > > > > > Quoting a state-worshipper's own words is "twisting" them, in
> > > > > > ed senter's Orwellian doublethink land.
> > > > > Quoting statements out of context is why you are a liar.
> > > > Show me the context that shows you meant something other than what you
> > > > said. I dare you. I double dare you.
> > > I used it in the context of good govt vs. bad govt. It wasn't meant
> > > to be a moral interpretation.
> > How is "good" versus "bad" DIFFERENT from a moral interpretation?
> > How is YOUR use of "good" NOT a purely subjective use, while everyone
> > else's is?
> Because it is not based on values. It is not a value judgment.
How is "good" NOT a value judgment?
> For instance, logic is the science of good and bad reasoning. 'Good
> and bad' is used in the sense of valid and faulty. Those are not
> value judgments.
Wrong. Logic is a science based on sound reasoning. "Good" is in the
eye of the beholder. \When logic soundly thrashes your belief, you
call it "bad."
> If I say a doctor treats his patience using good science. I am not
> making a value judgment about the science used.
Yes you are. You cannot even see it.
> I am saying the
> science is valid as opposed to what a witch doctor might use with
> potions and spells.
Valid means "sound" - NOT "good."
> > > Because I am not making a moral judgment. I am making an objective
> > > observation that everyone else can also observe.
> > Absolutely amazing - you think YOU are the sole arbiter of
> > "OBJECTIVITY" in the world. ed senter alone determines what is
> > "objectively good" now, eh?
> It is amazing how all your arguments rely upon semantics.
Debates are mostly about semantics - like haggling over what "good"
and "right" and "government" mean.
> > > The only way to do that would be to get a lobotomy and be an
> > > automaton. Since I haven't done that, you are wrong.
> > You lobotomized yourself when you turned your will and your life over
> > to the protection and care of your beloved politicians.
> See, you are trying to base your argument on a faulty premise.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
> > > Govt can't take away the passion. All it can do is force conformity
> > > with the dictates of reason and justice.
> > Correction: All it can do is ATTEMPT to force conformity with the
> > dictates of fallible, humans - politicians.
> Another faulty premise. Can't you stop , little boy malloy?
I'm sure you feel the premise is faulty.
> > How is that different
> > from anarchy?
> How is little boy malloy different than a liar?
Your opinion of me is none of my business. Again, you refuse to
answer the question.
> > We're back to the contradiction again. Why would you
> > want to subordinate your own subjective idea of right and wrong to a
> > bunch of subjective other people - the worst kind, politicians - to
> > make commandments for you to obey?
> I don't do that, numbnut.
You don't profess to be subject to "the law"?
> > > > > People form groups and that is an objective fact. These groups have
> > > > > rules and we call that govt. Govts that adhere to the fact that
> > > > > people inevitably experience conflict can duly be deemed PROPER.
>
> > > > 1) Again, you're using another subjective term - "proper" - in place
> > > > of right, or good. No matter what subjective term you come up with,
> > > > you're stuck with trying to say that there can be an objectively
> > > > "good" agent of making everyone adhere to "good" judgment, despite the
> > > > obvious fact that a) no such agency exists, and b) people continue to
> > > > display bad judgment in many ways all over the world.
> > > > 2) "Govts that adhere to the fact that people inevitably experience
> > > > conflict can duly be deemed PROPER." This is just plain nonsense.
> > > > Who deems it "proper"? How does a "govt" adhere to the fact that
> > > > people experience conflict? What does "adhere" mean in this context?
> > > > How would adhering to the fact that there is conflict make anyone or
> > > > anything "proper"? "Jack adheres to the fact that people experience
> > > > conflict. Therefore Jack is proper." Huh???
> > > Jack believes anyone who "believes" in govt must park their brain at
> > > the entrance and become an automaton. Therefore, Jack is delusional.
> > > Get it?
> > No. Jack is right. If you put your brain in park and ask someone
> > else to do your thinking for you, you are delusional.
> If you truly believe that, getting a driver's license isn't just your
> "get out of jail free card". It makes you insane.
Getting a driver's license is insane?
> > Answer the question: How does it follow that "government" is proper
> > because it adheres to the fact that conflict exists?
>
> a) it is axiomatic that people have disputes with other people
> b) the purpose of govt is to resolve disputes
> c) proper govt serves its stated purpose
d) therefore, since ed senter believes a, b, and c are true, then it
follows that there is no more conflict. Either that, or "proper
government" is a [subjective] pipe dream.
I'm sure you feel that way.
> Is conflict a symptom or is it the disease?
It is a condition.
> Are there people who NEVER experience conflict?
Beats me. Would people have conflict if "government" existed?
> If you are honest, that is the basis of your belief system.
What belief system??? I stated YOUR belief correctly - might makes
right. Now can you state mine correctly? I won't hold my breath.
> "There is conflict not because people are flawed. There is conflict
> because of the people who are flawed."
Yet another distinction without a difference. And you insist the way
to remedy conflict is to put those people who are flawed in charge of
vast amounts of weapons and money and ask them to MAKE you behave
yourself under the theory that might makes right. And you think I'm
insane?
> > > So this is the logic:
> > > a) people experience conflict
> > > b) proper govt provides a remedy for conflict (resolves the dispute)
> > 'b' is a fallacy because "proper" is a subjective term that has no
> > referent in objective reality. You make up your own definition of
> > "proper."
> I am using the dictionary meaning. It isn't a "fallacy". You are
> challenging the premise.
I'm challenging you to admit YOUR OWN judgment colors your use of the
terms "right" and "just" and "good" and "proper," and as you point
out, when others do the same thing, THERE IS NO objective "right" and
"just" and "good" and "proper."
> > > c) people continue to experience conflict
> > In other words, despite the attempt to create a "government" to
> > resolve the conflict, anarchy still exists. Your own brand of logic
> > still comes to the same conclusion as mine.
> You are limiting the meaning of "anarchy" to conflict.
No, I am not. I am including "conflict" as one of the properties of
anarchy, and there are lots of others.
> You don't resolve conflict b eliminating the conflict. You resolve
> conflict by providing a remedy for when conflict happens.
By putting flawed human beings whose passions won't allow them to
conform to the dictates of reason and justice in charge of tanks,
artillery, fighter and bomber aircraft, and atomic bombs. Marvelous
solution, ed.
> > > d) therefore, proper govt continues to provide a remedy for the
> > > conflict.
> > LOL. e) people continue to experience conflict f) anarchy still
> > exists g) govt continues to provide a remedy for the conflict h)
> > people continue to experience conflict i) anarchy still exists j)
> > govt continues to provide a remedy for the conflict k) anarchy still
> > exists . . .ad infinitum. Meanwhile, "government" remedies conflict
> > by robbing, kidnapping, and slaughtering millions of people. Nice
> > result of a self-contradictory delusion. Would WWII have happened if
> > "government" existed?
> > --Jackney Sneeb
> As explained above, you are just stupid.
Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of
attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is
advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the
truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the
argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.
Yet another failure to answer the question noted.
> All you have are semantics, lies, and hate, little boy malloy.
You seem to be projecting, ed . . . remember: when you point your
finger, you have three fingers pointing back at you.
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 13, 3:28 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > For instance, logic is the science of good and bad reasoning. 'Good
> > and bad' is used in the sense of valid and faulty. Those are not
> > value judgments.
>
> Wrong. Logic is a science based on sound reasoning.
A science of what?
> > It is amazing how all your arguments rely upon semantics.
>
> Debates are mostly about semantics - like haggling over what "good"
> and "right" and "government" mean.
>
Elevated debates are about IDEAS.
I can't even get past the infantile word games you play.
>
> > > We're back to the contradiction again. Why would you
> > > want to subordinate your own subjective idea of right and wrong to a
> > > bunch of subjective other people - the worst kind, politicians - to
> > > make commandments for you to obey?
> > I don't do that, numbnut.
>
> You don't profess to be subject to "the law"?
>
A govt of laws not men is way beyond your level of understanding?
>
> > > Answer the question: How does it follow that "government" is proper
> > > because it adheres to the fact that conflict exists?
> >
> > a) it is axiomatic that people have disputes with other people
> > b) the purpose of govt is to resolve disputes
> > c) proper govt serves its stated purpose
>
> d) therefore, since ed senter believes a, b, and c are true, then it
> follows that there is no more conflict. Either that, or "proper
> government" is a [subjective] pipe dream.
>
Do you know the difference between resolving disputes and eliminating
disputes altogether?
The difference is like night and day.
>
> > Is conflict a symptom or is it the disease?
>
> It is a condition.
>
> > Are there people who NEVER experience conflict?
>
> Beats me.
You just said it is a condition so the answer is NO.
> Would people have conflict if "government" existed?
>
Yes,
> > If you are honest, that is the basis of your belief system.
>
> What belief system??? I stated YOUR belief correctly - might makes
> right. Now can you state mine correctly? I won't hold my breath.
>
Your system is 'might makes right'.
The difference between me a you is that I know I am in that group.
However, you live in a state of hypocrisy.
> > "There is conflict not because people are flawed. There is conflict
> > because of the people who are flawed."
>
> Yet another distinction without a difference.
>
The difference is like night and day.
> And you insist the way
> to remedy conflict is to put those people who are flawed in charge of
> vast amounts of weapons and money and ask them to MAKE you behave
> yourself under the theory that might makes right. And you think I'm
> insane?
No, I say put the LAW in charge. We have a govt of law not men.
>
> > > In other words, despite the attempt to create a "government" to
> > > resolve the conflict, anarchy still exists. Your own brand of logic
> > > still comes to the same conclusion as mine.
> > You are limiting the meaning of "anarchy" to conflict.
>
> No, I am not. I am including "conflict" as one of the properties of
> anarchy, and there are lots of others.
>
Iced tea and hot tea both contain tea. The difference is their
temperature.
The difference between anarchy and govt is that govt has rules.
> > You don't resolve conflict b eliminating the conflict. You resolve
> > conflict by providing a remedy for when conflict happens.
>
> By putting flawed human beings whose passions won't allow them to
> conform to the dictates of reason and justice in charge of tanks,
> artillery, fighter and bomber aircraft, and atomic bombs. Marvelous
> solution, ed.
>
No, numbnut. By putting both the governed and the govt under the law.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> > You don't profess to be subject to "the law"?
> A govt of laws not men is way beyond your level of understanding?
Here is your mythical "Rule of Law" debunked, which I fully expect you
to IGNORE:
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
> > Would people have conflict if "government" existed?
> Yes,
Then what did you accomplish with your "government" belief other than
add hundreds of millions of innocent people to the catalog of
senseless mass slaughter in the world?
> > > If you are honest, that is the basis of your belief system.
> > What belief system??? I stated YOUR belief correctly - might makes
> > right. Now can you state mine correctly? I won't hold my breath.
> Your system is 'might makes right'.
You're on drugs. I have stopped counting the number of times YOU
claimed might makes right, in direct ignorance of the fact that it is
a notorious fallacy.
> The difference between me a you is that I know I am in that group.
The difference between you and me is I gave up the delusion that I
need a "government" mean enough to punish all the bad guys, yet too
nice to victimize me. You cling to it.
> > > "There is conflict not because people are flawed. There is conflict
> > > because of the people who are flawed."
> > Yet another distinction without a difference.
> The difference is like night and day.
And being blind, you can't describe it . . .
> > And you insist the way
> > to remedy conflict is to put those people who are flawed in charge of
> > vast amounts of weapons and money and ask them to MAKE you behave
> > yourself under the theory that might makes right. And you think I'm
> > insane?
> No, I say put the LAW in charge. We have a govt of law not men.
Who makes and enforces the law? Aardvarks? No. It's the people you
claim are the "flawed human beings whose passions won't allow them to
conform to the dictates of reason and justice." The "law" is as open
to interpretation as the bible or any other religious scribbles:
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
> > > > In other words, despite the attempt to create a "government" to
> > > > resolve the conflict, anarchy still exists. Your own brand of logic
> > > > still comes to the same conclusion as mine.
> > > You are limiting the meaning of "anarchy" to conflict.
> > No, I am not. I am including "conflict" as one of the properties of
> > anarchy, and there are lots of others.
> Iced tea and hot tea both contain tea. The difference is their
> temperature.
> The difference between anarchy and govt is that govt has rules.
There is no magic ingredient in anarchy to prevent people from
dreaming up rules. There isn't even a magic ingredient in anarchy to
prevent idiots from wishing there was a Grand High Exalted Mystic
ruler making the bad guys be good, either. And anarchy can't stop you
from calling a gang of extortionist lawyers "government," either.
These are just a few of the endless examples of anarchy - "government"
is a superstitious myth.
> > > You don't resolve conflict b eliminating the conflict. You resolve
> > > conflict by providing a remedy for when conflict happens.
> > By putting flawed human beings whose passions won't allow them to
> > conform to the dictates of reason and justice in charge of tanks,
> > artillery, fighter and bomber aircraft, and atomic bombs. Marvelous
> > solution, ed.
> No, numbnut. By putting both the governed and the govt under the law.
Who makes and enforces the law? Aardvarks? No. It's the people you
claim are the "flawed human beings whose passions won't allow them to
conform to the dictates of reason and justice." The "law" is as open
to interpretation as the bible or any other religious scribbles:
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
Too bad for your argument Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote a book called
Constitutional Chaos, in which he detailed the antics of those you
worship as you saviors in power. They have ignored the constitution,
including the Bill of Rights, engaged in bribing witnesses, kidnapping
people, running secret torture prisons overseas, planting evidence on
victims in order to frame them for stuff they didn't do, suborning
perjury (judges, cops, and lawyers alike), and a plethora of other
activities that would, as Dan Evans so aptly put it, "would be crimes
if committed by individuals." Unfortunately, Judge Napolitano
believes, as you do, that all you have to do is scribble a few words
and those rogue agents would instantly become honest. He thinks there
needs to be a "law" that says "people in government aren't allowed to
break the law." Excuse me, do you NOT see something bizarre about
that??? No? I didn't think so. So read the post script, if you
don't get it.*
Question: Would George Bush, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, or
"Honest Bill" Clinton have been allowed to be president if
"government" existed?
--Jackney Sneeb
*PS - 11-12-2004 http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=14;action=display;threadid=12164
I just yesterday got my hot little hands on the most sensational book
on "government" of the year, no doubstky aboutsky, as the Russians
say. The things Judge Andrew P. Napolitano reveals in his book
Constitutional Chaos - what happens when the government breaks its own
laws (2004, Nelson Current, Nashville) are not big news. There are
anecdotes from the judge's personal experiences on the bench, and also
stories that have been told publicly by such mainstream media as CBS's
60 Minutes. The news is that Judge Napolitano is spilling the beans
that these abuses of government power are not the aberration that the
mainstream media might imply. These practices such as bribing
witnesses, kidnapping suspects, false arrest, manufacturing evidence -
even manufacturing the crime - are now accepted as standard modus
operandi by law enforcement and - and, mind you - the judiciary all
the way to the supreme court.
Judge Napolitano is the affable, suave legal commentator for Fox News
Network, yet he is uncontaminated by the reputation of Fox as right-
wing, knee-jerk conservative. He argues with Bill O'Reilly that the
Taliban prisoners interned at Guananimo deserve constitutional rights
just as Americans do. He has the courage to tell the truth as he sees
it, and he has seen plenty. The book is certain to annoy those in law
enforcement and government. I wonder at this point whether the left
and right will be equally offended by the sinister, even wicked depths
to which the state has descended in the name of preserving order,
protecting the citizenry, and maintaining civilization.
The one criticism I have is that the judge presents this state of
affairs as if it were a case of "government" gone wrong, the state
wandering from its intended purpose. My question would be "what would
you expect a bunch of fallible humans to do when 'The People' grant
them the power to tax and order everyone around?" Sooner or later,
the bad guys (the ones we need protection from, lest we fall into
chaos and anarchy!) figure out how to use the system to get themselves
installed as our tax agents and rulers. It isn't an accident. It
happens every time it is tried.
There are three ways to look at the situation:
1) "Government" is a necessary evil, and we must tolerate some abuse
of our rights on behalf of the greater good;
2) "Government" is a necessary evil, and we must keep our eyes on it
to make sure it doesn't exceed the authority we gave it;
3) "Government" is in reality a gang of extortionist lawyers, thugs,
and con artists operating a protection racket.
Guess which one I pick. If you accept #1, don't bitch when you get
locked in the tank for the crime of being at the wrong place at the
wrong time. If you are persuaded by #2, you're bound to be
disappointed, even if you do spend your time watching the badged thugs
- because you will never get them to obey their own laws. Why should
they? You gave them your blessing to rule you. You agreed that their
rules apply to you. They don't care that you want them to play fair.
If you ever come to accept #3, you might be able to write the same
book as Judge Napolitano, except that you won't wind up hoping the bad
"government" will purge itself of the bad apples who comprise it. You
won't demand that congress pass a law requiring law enforcers (and
congress, for that matter) to obey the law.
He notes early on that it should be against the law for the law
enforcers to break the law. Wouldn't that be obvious in any system of
law enforcement? Well, it isn't that way, is it. Why isn't it? It's
not only because the bad guys get themselves installed in the system.
Otherwise-good people eventually become corrupted by the system, too.
What is it about "power corrupts" that people forget?
I highly recommend this book and challenge the reader to remember the
three models of "government" above while reading it. When the judge
writes that "government" does these things because it has found "crime
pays," and that breaking the law can guarantee prosecutorial success,
how could any model but #1 or #3 make sense?
--XCobraJock
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 14, 5:17 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > You don't profess to be subject to "the law"?
> > A govt of laws not men is way beyond your level of understanding?
>
> Here is your mythical "Rule of Law" debunked, which I fully expect you
> to IGNORE:
> http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
>
How funny. When I don't fall for your stupid rhetoric, you conclude
that I "ignore" it.
LMAO.
Where did this guy ever get the idea that the law was objective? It
ain't. That is why our system of govt has built in CHECKS AND
BALANCES. Get it? Since the premise of the essay is flawed, the
essay amounts to mindless filler.
> > > Would people have conflict if "government" existed?
> > Yes,
>
> Then what did you accomplish with your "government" belief other than
> add hundreds of millions of innocent people to the catalog of
> senseless mass slaughter in the world?
>
Govt did not do that, numbnut. People did.
As I have told you before. The choice is not between to have a govt
or not. The choice is what kind of govt will you have.
> > > > If you are honest, that is the basis of your belief system.
> > > What belief system??? I stated YOUR belief correctly - might makes
> > > right. Now can you state mine correctly? I won't hold my breath.
> > Your system is 'might makes right'.
>
> You're on drugs. I have stopped counting the number of times YOU
> claimed might makes right, in direct ignorance of the fact that it is
> a notorious fallacy.
>
I have quit counting the number of times that you display your
ignorance because you don't know squat about applying the appeal to
force fallacy.
Why don't you actually take a philosophy course instead on
misinterpreting things off the internet. An actual teacher would keep
you on the proper course if you were willing to listen.
> > The difference between me a you is that I know I am in that group.
>
> The difference between you and me is I gave up the delusion that I
> need a "government" mean enough to punish all the bad guys, yet too
> nice to victimize me. You cling to it.
>
BTW, what is logic a science of?
> > > > "There is conflict not because people are flawed. There is conflict
> > > > because of the people who are flawed."
> > > Yet another distinction without a difference.
> > The difference is like night and day.
>
> And being blind, you can't describe it . . .
>
You believe you are somehow above all the people who are flawed.
> > > And you insist the way
> > > to remedy conflict is to put those people who are flawed in charge of
> > > vast amounts of weapons and money and ask them to MAKE you behave
> > > yourself under the theory that might makes right. And you think I'm
> > > insane?
> > No, I say put the LAW in charge. We have a govt of law not men.
>
> Who makes and enforces the law? Aardvarks? No. It's the people you
> claim are the "flawed human beings whose passions won't allow them to
> conform to the dictates of reason and justice." The "law" is as open
> to interpretation as the bible or any other religious scribbles:
> http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
>
That is why govt power is divided. The legislature makes the law.
The executive enforces the law. And the judiciary inteprets the law.
They are each independent branches.
Then to keep them all honest, the People are the ultimate authority.
> > > > > In other words, despite the attempt to create a "government" to
> > > > > resolve the conflict, anarchy still exists. Your own brand of logic
> > > > > still comes to the same conclusion as mine.
> > > > You are limiting the meaning of "anarchy" to conflict.
> > > No, I am not. I am including "conflict" as one of the properties of
> > > anarchy, and there are lots of others.
> > Iced tea and hot tea both contain tea. The difference is their
> > temperature.
> > The difference between anarchy and govt is that govt has rules.
>
> There is no magic ingredient in anarchy to prevent people from
> dreaming up rules. There isn't even a magic ingredient in anarchy to
> prevent idiots from wishing there was a Grand High Exalted Mystic
> ruler making the bad guys be good, either. And anarchy can't stop you
> from calling a gang of extortionist lawyers "government," either.
> These are just a few of the endless examples of anarchy - "government"
> is a superstitious myth.
>
All irrelevant! The most important ingredient is the missing
ingredient. The rules, you dumbass.
Govt has rules. If you want to play the game with no rules, be my
guest. That just makes you a dumbass.
You sneak around with your "get out of jail free cards", collect all
the benefits, then spout mindless rhetoric like the worthless
hypocrite that you are.
> > > > You don't resolve conflict b eliminating the conflict. You resolve
> > > > conflict by providing a remedy for when conflict happens.
> > > By putting flawed human beings whose passions won't allow them to
> > > conform to the dictates of reason and justice in charge of tanks,
> > > artillery, fighter and bomber aircraft, and atomic bombs. Marvelous
> > > solution, ed.
> > No, numbnut. By putting both the governed and the govt under the law.
>
> Who makes and enforces the law? Aardvarks? No. It's the people you
> claim are the "flawed human beings whose passions won't allow them to
> conform to the dictates of reason and justice." The "law" is as open
> to interpretation as the bible or any other religious scribbles:
> http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
>
That is why there are built in checks and balances which you and your
numbnut buddy ignore.
> Too bad for your argument Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote a book called
> Constitutional Chaos, in which he detailed the antics of those you
> worship as you saviors in power.
Writing a book of anecdotes might get a rise out of the lunatic fringe
like yourself, but not a single man or group of men wield enough power
to mean squat.
You have a voice and you choose to spout hate. Your logic is spurious
and you ignore the spectacular things about our form of govt.
You attack individuals, yet you can not mount a single argument
against what makes our form of govt great.
As I have always said, the choice is not between to have govt or not.
The choice is between which govt will you have.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> > Here is your mythical "Rule of Law" debunked, which I fully expect you
> > to IGNORE:
> >http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
>
> How funny. When I don't fall for your stupid rhetoric, you conclude
> that I "ignore" it.
> LMAO.
> Where did this guy ever get the idea that the law was objective? It
> ain't.
There goes your theory that might makes right . . .anyway, like Brian
Rookard, you try to review things you never read. It's obvious you
didn't read the essay because the author NEVER SAYS the law is
objective.
> That is why our system of govt has built in CHECKS AND
> BALANCES. Get it?
Another myth of your cult. There's no such thing as checks and
balances in any sense that you mean. Here's your so-called "checks
and balances" in reality: http://nogov4me.net/archive/checks.htm You
would find, if you actually read that, which you won't, that your
theory boils down to anarchy.
> Since the premise of the essay is flawed, the
> essay amounts to mindless filler.
Which you didn't read . . .
> > > > Would people have conflict if "government" existed?
> > > Yes,
> > Then what did you accomplish with your "government" belief other than
> > add hundreds of millions of innocent people to the catalog of
> > senseless mass slaughter in the world?
> Govt did not do that, numbnut. People did.
LOL! Who is "government" made of - Leprechauns?
This is exactly why I call the belief in "government" purely
religious. Like a born-again Christian, you attribute all the GOOD
stuff to your god, and all the BAD stuff to people, when in reality it
is always people doing it all. Your god is a myth. (Both of them.)
> As I have told you before. The choice is not between to have a govt
> or not. The choice is what kind of govt will you have.
Like what kind of a god you want, right? Go ahead, choose your
delusion. I choose none.
> Why don't you actually take a philosophy course instead on
> misinterpreting things off the internet. An actual teacher would keep
> you on the proper course if you were willing to listen.
Why can't you answer the question correctly if you're such a shit-hot
philosopher? What is the basis of my philosophy (and try to use MY
words).
> > > > > "There is conflict not because people are flawed. There is conflict
> > > > > because of the people who are flawed."
> > > > Yet another distinction without a difference.
> > > The difference is like night and day.
> > And being blind, you can't describe it . . .
> You believe you are somehow above all the people who are flawed.
No, it makes them equal to me and you in terms of their right-to rule
others. It makes them unqualified to tell me and you how we should
live our lives. It makes them incapable of having "authority" that
ordinary mortals don't have. It makes the belief in making them into
"government" a dangerous delusion.
> > > > And you insist the way
> > > > to remedy conflict is to put those people who are flawed in charge of
> > > > vast amounts of weapons and money and ask them to MAKE you behave
> > > > yourself under the theory that might makes right. And you think I'm
> > > > insane?
> > > No, I say put the LAW in charge. We have a govt of law not men.
> > Who makes and enforces the law? Aardvarks? No. It's the people you
> > claim are the "flawed human beings whose passions won't allow them to
> > conform to the dictates of reason and justice." The "law" is as open
> > to interpretation as the bible or any other religious scribbles:
> >http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
> That is why govt power is divided. The legislature makes the law.
> The executive enforces the law. And the judiciary inteprets the law.
That's like saying the tobacco companies can't possibly harm us. They
have one committee that oversees production. They have a CEO who
implements business decisions. They have a research and development
department that decides how to make the best product. Gee, I guess
with those tasks divided, the tobacco companies are bound by checks
and balances! How could they possibly make a product that kills
people?
Gack.
Read the Dred Scott decision and tell me how your beloved checks and
balances helped the slaves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
> They are each independent branches.
As I just showed, that has no positive effect when it is in the best
interests of those in power to victimize you. Where do the supreme
court judges get their pay? From congress. Who appoints the judges?
The president. Gee, how "independent."
> Then to keep them all honest, the People are the ultimate authority.
Here you go with the ultimate delusion. So it was "the people's"
fault when the Germans slaughtered millions of innocents in the
concentration camps. It was "the people's" fault when LBJ lied to get
the US into an illegal, immoral war. It was "the people's" fault when
George Bush illegally/immorally invaded Iraq. "This is exactly why I
call the belief in 'government' purely religious. Like a born-again
Christian, you attribute all the GOOD stuff to your god, and all the
BAD stuff to people, when in reality it is always people doing it
all."
Your belief that all politicians are honest is infinitely risible.
> > > > > > In other words, despite the attempt to create a "government" to
> > > > > > resolve the conflict, anarchy still exists. Your own brand of logic
> > > > > > still comes to the same conclusion as mine.
> > > > > You are limiting the meaning of "anarchy" to conflict.
> > > > No, I am not. I am including "conflict" as one of the properties of
> > > > anarchy, and there are lots of others.
> > > Iced tea and hot tea both contain tea. The difference is their
> > > temperature.
> > > The difference between anarchy and govt is that govt has rules.
>
> > There is no magic ingredient in anarchy to prevent people from
> > dreaming up rules. There isn't even a magic ingredient in anarchy to
> > prevent idiots from wishing there was a Grand High Exalted Mystic
> > ruler making the bad guys be good, either. And anarchy can't stop you
> > from calling a gang of extortionist lawyers "government," either.
> > These are just a few of the endless examples of anarchy - "government"
> > is a superstitious myth.
> All irrelevant! The most important ingredient is the missing
> ingredient. The rules, you dumbass.
Here's my rule: Anarchy exists. Ignore it at your own risk.
> Govt has rules.
So do I. Do you believe I'm "government"?
> If you want to play the game with no rules, be my
> guest. That just makes you a dumbass.
In anarchy, I choose the rules, and they aren't all the ones in your
cult. Just in case you think I'm kidding, list the rules in your
cult. I know you can't do it. Your cult has literally millions of
rules (i.e., "laws"), which you insist you need to keep anarchy from
happening. Trouble is you don't even know what they are. Even a
Christian knows most of his ten commandments. You couldn't even list
1/10th of 1% of your cult's commandments. "But we neeeeeed laws, or
anarchy would get us!" How can you need something you know absolutely
nothing about?
> You sneak around with your "get out of jail free cards", collect all
> the benefits, then spout mindless rhetoric like the worthless
> hypocrite that you are.
How is it hypocritical? Is hypocrisy like saying you neeeeed laws,
and then NOT knowing what they are?
> > > > > You don't resolve conflict b eliminating the conflict. You resolve
> > > > > conflict by providing a remedy for when conflict happens.
> > > > By putting flawed human beings whose passions won't allow them to
> > > > conform to the dictates of reason and justice in charge of tanks,
> > > > artillery, fighter and bomber aircraft, and atomic bombs. Marvelous
> > > > solution, ed.
> > > No, numbnut. By putting both the governed and the govt under the law.
> > Who makes and enforces the law? Aardvarks? No. It's the people you
> > claim are the "flawed human beings whose passions won't allow them to
> > conform to the dictates of reason and justice." The "law" is as open
> > to interpretation as the bible or any other religious scribbles:
> >http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
> That is why there are built in checks and balances which you and your
> numbnut buddy ignore.
If I ignored them, I would never have written that essay about them.
They prove anarchy exists.
> > Too bad for your argument Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote a book called
> > Constitutional Chaos, in which he detailed the antics of those you
> > worship as you saviors in power.
> Writing a book of anecdotes might get a rise out of the lunatic fringe
> like yourself, but not a single man or group of men wield enough power
> to mean squat.
So when a judge says slaves should be returned to their masters, you
think he's right because might makes right, yet when another one says
your cult is in trouble because the bad guys are running amok, you
call him a "lunatic fringe."
> You have a voice and you choose to spout hate.
You have said that several times, and I let it go as a spasmodic
ejaculation from a silly religious fanatic. now, I'm asking you to
put up or shut up: how is it "hate'?
How is might-makes-right NOT based on hate?
> Your logic is spurious
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
> and you ignore the spectacular things about our form of govt.
Like Obama's pledge [he's constitutional law expert, right?] to expand
Bush's Faith-Based Initiative, or his approval of FISA, or the Bush
regime's USA PATRIOT Act, or "Honest Bill" Clinton's Extraordinary
Rendition program, or Richard Nixon's "I am not a crook" speech, or
Lyndon Johnson's taped admission that he lied to get the US into an
illegal war, or the Dred Scott decision, or prohibition, or the Great
Depression, or the mass extortion [income tax], or the failed "War on
Drugs," for example?
> You attack individuals,
Where? Show me who I attacked.
> yet you can not mount a single argument
> against what makes our form of govt great.
All I have done is shown exactly why your belief in "government" is a
delusion. Great delusion.
> As I have always said, the choice is not between to have govt or not.
> The choice is between which govt will you have.
I choose self government. That is compatible with anarchy.
Apparently, you prefer someone else ruling you. While that is also
compatible with anarchy, it is hazardous to you and those around you.
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 14, 10:31 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > Here is your mythical "Rule of Law" debunked, which I fully expect you
> > > to IGNORE:
> > >http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
> >
> > How funny. When I don't fall for your stupid rhetoric, you conclude
> > that I "ignore" it.
> > LMAO.
> > Where did this guy ever get the idea that the law was objective? It
> > ain't.
>
> There goes your theory that might makes right . . .anyway, like Brian
> Rookard, you try to review things you never read. It's obvious you
> didn't read the essay because the author NEVER SAYS the law is
> objective.
>
I read it several years ago and I have read it again.
Hasnas defines "rule of law" as some belief in the objectiveness and
rightness of the law then calls it a myth and proceeds to claim he has
"debunked" the myth.
He is no different than you, little boy malloy. You define
"government" as some belief that lobotomizes your brain and eliminates
human conflict then you claim you have logically found the
contradictions.
All you and Hasnas have done is assume your conclusions by defining
the concept to fit your argument.
The law has never been objective so there ain't no myth to debunk.
The rule of law is a system of govt contrary to despotism whether the
despot is a monarch or group of men. The rule of law is in direct
opposition to tyranny.
That is the meaning of a govt of laws not men. Hasnas makes the same
logical errors as you, little boy malloy.
Self-govt of course recognizes that the law is made by people and
interpreted by people. Hence it can not be objective.
That is why our self-govt incorporates a constitution with inherent
division of power and checks and balances.
> > That is why our system of govt has built in CHECKS AND
> > BALANCES. Get it?
>
> Another myth of your cult. There's no such thing as checks and
> balances in any sense that you mean. Here's your so-called "checks
> and balances" in reality: http://nogov4me.net/archive/checks.htm You
> would find, if you actually read that, which you won't, that your
> theory boils down to anarchy.
>
LMAO. Aren't you embarrassed by that silly 5th grade essay?
No where do you address even one check or balance. All you do is spew
on about "authority". Denial ain't argument, dumbass.
> > Since the premise of the essay is flawed, the
> > essay amounts to mindless filler.
>
> Which you didn't read . . .
>
I read and understood it. It is drivel.
> > > > > Would people have conflict if "government" existed?
> > > > Yes,
> > > Then what did you accomplish with your "government" belief other than
> > > add hundreds of millions of innocent people to the catalog of
> > > senseless mass slaughter in the world?
> > Govt did not do that, numbnut. People did.
>
> LOL! Who is "government" made of - Leprechauns?
>
Govt is made of people exercises their judgment, numbnut. Never said
that judgment would not sometimes be poor judgment.
>
> > As I have told you before. The choice is not between to have a govt
> > or not. The choice is what kind of govt will you have.
>
> Like what kind of a god you want, right? Go ahead, choose your
> delusion. I choose none.
>
Liar. Look at all of your "get out of jail free cards".
> > Why don't you actually take a philosophy course instead on
> > misinterpreting things off the internet. An actual teacher would keep
> > you on the proper course if you were willing to listen.
>
> Why can't you answer the question correctly if you're such a shit-hot
> philosopher? What is the basis of my philosophy (and try to use MY
> words).
>
You never say what you mean, numbnut.
> > > > > > "There is conflict not because people are flawed. There is conflict
> > > > > > because of the people who are flawed."
> > > > > Yet another distinction without a difference.
> > > > The difference is like night and day.
> > > And being blind, you can't describe it . . .
> > You believe you are somehow above all the people who are flawed.
>
> No, it makes them equal to me and you in terms of their right-to rule
> others. It makes them unqualified to tell me and you how we should
> live our lives. It makes them incapable of having "authority" that
> ordinary mortals don't have. It makes the belief in making them into
> "government" a dangerous delusion.
>
Regardless, you can't stop them.
> > > > > And you insist the way
> > > > > to remedy conflict is to put those people who are flawed in charge of
> > > > > vast amounts of weapons and money and ask them to MAKE you behave
> > > > > yourself under the theory that might makes right. And you think I'm
> > > > > insane?
> > > > No, I say put the LAW in charge. We have a govt of law not men.
> > > Who makes and enforces the law? Aardvarks? No. It's the people you
> > > claim are the "flawed human beings whose passions won't allow them to
> > > conform to the dictates of reason and justice." The "law" is as open
> > > to interpretation as the bible or any other religious scribbles:
> > >http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
> > That is why govt power is divided. The legislature makes the law.
> > The executive enforces the law. And the judiciary inteprets the law.
>
> That's like saying the tobacco companies can't possibly harm us. They
> have one committee that oversees production. They have a CEO who
> implements business decisions. They have a research and development
> department that decides how to make the best product. Gee, I guess
> with those tasks divided, the tobacco companies are bound by checks
> and balances! How could they possibly make a product that kills
> people?
>
At least no one person is making all of the decisions. And you are
free to smoke or not.
> Gack.
>
> Read the Dred Scott decision and tell me how your beloved checks and
> balances helped the slaves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
>
The Amendment process- the 14th Amendment reversed the Scott v.
Sandford decision.
> > They are each independent branches.
>
> As I just showed, that has no positive effect when it is in the best
> interests of those in power to victimize you. Where do the supreme
> court judges get their pay? From congress.
They don't set their own pay schedules, do they? And their pay can't
be diminished.
> Who appoints the judges?
> The president. Gee, how "independent."
>
Appointed by the president under the advise and consent of the
Senate. The judges serve for life unless the resign or impeached.
> > Then to keep them all honest, the People are the ultimate authority.
>
>
> Your belief that all politicians are honest is infinitely risible.
>
Why are you lying again?
Politicians are people, so like all people, they are fallible.
> > > > > > > In other words, despite the attempt to create a "government" to
> > > > > > > resolve the conflict, anarchy still exists. Your own brand of logic
> > > > > > > still comes to the same conclusion as mine.
> > > > > > You are limiting the meaning of "anarchy" to conflict.
> > > > > No, I am not. I am including "conflict" as one of the properties of
> > > > > anarchy, and there are lots of others.
> > > > Iced tea and hot tea both contain tea. The difference is their
> > > > temperature.
> > > > The difference between anarchy and govt is that govt has rules.
> >
> > > There is no magic ingredient in anarchy to prevent people from
> > > dreaming up rules. There isn't even a magic ingredient in anarchy to
> > > prevent idiots from wishing there was a Grand High Exalted Mystic
> > > ruler making the bad guys be good, either. And anarchy can't stop you
> > > from calling a gang of extortionist lawyers "government," either.
> > > These are just a few of the endless examples of anarchy - "government"
> > > is a superstitious myth.
> > All irrelevant! The most important ingredient is the missing
> > ingredient. The rules, you dumbass.
>
> Here's my rule: Anarchy exists. Ignore it at your own risk.
>
Make sure you keep those "get out of jail free cards" ready, dumbass.
> > Govt has rules.
>
> So do I. Do you believe I'm "government"?
>
To the extent you rule yourself, yes. But the concept of govt usually
refers to a social theory.
> > If you want to play the game with no rules, be my
> > guest. That just makes you a dumbass.
>
> In anarchy, I choose the rules, and they aren't all the ones in your
> cult. Just in case you think I'm kidding, list the rules in your
> cult. I know you can't do it. Your cult has literally millions of
> rules (i.e., "laws"), which you insist you need to keep anarchy from
> happening. Trouble is you don't even know what they are. Even a
> Christian knows most of his ten commandments. You couldn't even list
> 1/10th of 1% of your cult's commandments. "But we neeeeeed laws, or
> anarchy would get us!" How can you need something you know absolutely
> nothing about?
>
Make sure you keep those "get out of jail free cards" ready, dumbass.
> > You sneak around with your "get out of jail free cards", collect all
> > the benefits, then spout mindless rhetoric like the worthless
> > hypocrite that you are.
>
> How is it hypocritical? Is hypocrisy like saying you neeeeed laws,
> and then NOT knowing what they are?
>
A hypocrite points out the "flaws" in others all the while he is
guilty of those same flaws.
> > > > > > You don't resolve conflict b eliminating the conflict. You resolve
> > > > > > conflict by providing a remedy for when conflict happens.
> > > > > By putting flawed human beings whose passions won't allow them to
> > > > > conform to the dictates of reason and justice in charge of tanks,
> > > > > artillery, fighter and bomber aircraft, and atomic bombs. Marvelous
> > > > > solution, ed.
> > > > No, numbnut. By putting both the governed and the govt under the law.
> > > Who makes and enforces the law? Aardvarks? No. It's the people you
> > > claim are the "flawed human beings whose passions won't allow them to
> > > conform to the dictates of reason and justice." The "law" is as open
> > > to interpretation as the bible or any other religious scribbles:
> > >http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
> > That is why there are built in checks and balances which you and your
> > numbnut buddy ignore.
>
> If I ignored them, I would never have written that essay about them.
> They prove anarchy exists.
>
Yet you failed to even address one check or balance, 5th grader.
> > > Too bad for your argument Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote a book called
> > > Constitutional Chaos, in which he detailed the antics of those you
> > > worship as you saviors in power.
> > Writing a book of anecdotes might get a rise out of the lunatic fringe
> > like yourself, but not a single man or group of men wield enough power
> > to mean squat.
>
> So when a judge says slaves should be returned to their masters, you
> think he's right because might makes right,
No I don't.
> yet when another one says
> your cult is in trouble because the bad guys are running amok, you
> call him a "lunatic fringe."
>
No, I call the nuts like you lunatic fringe.
> > You have a voice and you choose to spout hate.
>
> You have said that several times, and I let it go as a spasmodic
> ejaculation from a silly religious fanatic. now, I'm asking you to
> put up or shut up: how is it "hate'?
>
You never address anything logically. All you spout is hate.
> How is might-makes-right NOT based on hate?
>
Might makes right is based on reality.
> > Your logic is spurious
>
> Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
>
> > and you ignore the spectacular things about our form of govt.
>
> Like Obama's pledge [he's constitutional law expert, right?] to expand
> Bush's Faith-Based Initiative, or his approval of FISA, or the Bush
> regime's USA PATRIOT Act, or "Honest Bill" Clinton's Extraordinary
> Rendition program, or Richard Nixon's "I am not a crook" speech, or
> Lyndon Johnson's taped admission that he lied to get the US into an
> illegal war, or the Dred Scott decision, or prohibition, or the Great
> Depression, or the mass extortion [income tax], or the failed "War on
> Drugs," for example?
>
> > You attack individuals,
>
> Where? Show me who I attacked.
>
Read what you wrote in the above paragraph.
> > yet you can not mount a single argument
> > against what makes our form of govt great.
>
> All I have done is shown exactly why your belief in "government" is a
> delusion. Great delusion.
>
> > As I have always said, the choice is not between to have govt or not.
> > The choice is between which govt will you have.
>
> I choose self government. That is compatible with anarchy.
> Apparently, you prefer someone else ruling you. While that is also
> compatible with anarchy, it is hazardous to you and those around you.
> --Jackney Sneeb
Is that why you carry your "get out of jail free cards", hypocrite?
Jackne...@gmail.com
> I read it several years ago and I have read it again.
> Hasnas defines "rule of law" as some belief in the objectiveness and
> rightness of the law then calls it a myth and proceeds to claim he has
> "debunked" the myth.
And he did a damn good job.
> He is no different than you, little boy malloy.
Thank you, I'll accept the compliment.
> You define
> "government" as some belief that lobotomizes your brain and eliminates
> human conflict then you claim you have logically found the
> contradictions.
It is, and I did.
> All you and Hasnas have done is assume your conclusions by defining
> the concept to fit your argument.
> The law has never been objective so there ain't no myth to debunk.
So you admit there is no more validity to "the law" than there is to
any other religious commandments.
> The rule of law is a system of govt contrary to despotism
There's where you're wrong. The rule of law in the hands of a
criminal class (politicians and lawyers) IS despotism.
> Self-govt of course recognizes that the law is made by people and
> interpreted by people. Hence it can not be objective.
Self-government is definitely NOT what you believe in, if you claim
might-makes-right.
> > Another myth of your cult. There's no such thing as checks and
> > balances in any sense that you mean. Here's your so-called "checks
> > and balances" in reality: http://nogov4me.net/archive/checks.htm You
> > would find, if you actually read that, which you won't, that your
> > theory boils down to anarchy.
>
> LMAO. Aren't you embarrassed by that silly 5th grade essay?
The fact that you can't refute it makes me very satisfied with it.
> I read and understood it. It is drivel.
I'll be the judge of that. Aren't you the one who said something like
"the fact that Jesus . . .resurrected form the dead is not difficult
to prove"? I trust my judgment over yours, ed.
> > > > > > Would people have conflict if "government" existed?
> > > > > Yes,
> > > > Then what did you accomplish with your "government" belief other than
> > > > add hundreds of millions of innocent people to the catalog of
> > > > senseless mass slaughter in the world?
> > > Govt did not do that, numbnut. People did.
> > LOL! Who is "government" made of - Leprechauns?
> Govt is made of people exercises their judgment, numbnut. Never said
> that judgment would not sometimes be poor judgment.
You said "government" did not do that [senseless mass slaughter],
people did. If "government" doesn't do the bad stuff, why do you
insist you neeeed it to do the good stuff?
> > > As I have told you before. The choice is not between to have a govt
> > > or not. The choice is what kind of govt will you have.
> > Like what kind of a god you want, right? Go ahead, choose your
> > delusion. I choose none.
> Liar. Look at all of your "get out of jail free cards".
God didn't give me a get out of jail free card. Neither did
"government." Both are your imaginary friends.
> > > Why don't you actually take a philosophy course instead on
> > > misinterpreting things off the internet. An actual teacher would keep
> > > you on the proper course if you were willing to listen.
> > Why can't you answer the question correctly if you're such a shit-hot
> > philosopher? What is the basis of my philosophy (and try to use MY
> > words).
> You never say what you mean, numbnut.
Lack of response noted.
> > No, it makes them equal to me and you in terms of their right-to rule
> > others. It makes them unqualified to tell me and you how we should
> > live our lives. It makes them incapable of having "authority" that
> > ordinary mortals don't have. It makes the belief in making them into
> > "government" a dangerous delusion.
> Regardless, you can't stop them.
That doesn't make them right.
> > > > > > And you insist the way
> > > > > > to remedy conflict is to put those people who are flawed in charge of
> > > > > > vast amounts of weapons and money and ask them to MAKE you behave
> > > > > > yourself under the theory that might makes right. And you think I'm
> > > > > > insane?
> > > > > No, I say put the LAW in charge. We have a govt of law not men.
> > > > Who makes and enforces the law? Aardvarks? No. It's the people you
> > > > claim are the "flawed human beings whose passions won't allow them to
> > > > conform to the dictates of reason and justice." The "law" is as open
> > > > to interpretation as the bible or any other religious scribbles:
> > > >http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
> > > That is why govt power is divided. The legislature makes the law.
> > > The executive enforces the law. And the judiciary inteprets the law.
> > That's like saying the tobacco companies can't possibly harm us. They
> > have one committee that oversees production. They have a CEO who
> > implements business decisions. They have a research and development
> > department that decides how to make the best product. Gee, I guess
> > with those tasks divided, the tobacco companies are bound by checks
> > and balances! How could they possibly make a product that kills
> > people?
> At least no one person is making all of the decisions. And you are
> free to smoke or not.
Another absence of substantive response. However, you're making a
good point about the tobacco companies vs the state - we are free to
refuse to let the tobacco companies victimize us. The opposite of the
state.
> > Read the Dred Scott decision and tell me how your beloved checks and
> > balances helped the slaves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
> The Amendment process- the 14th Amendment reversed the Scott v.
> Sandford decision.
So? The fact that they can reverse a decision means they can reverse
it again. Your beloved checks and balances are a middle school myth.
> > > They are each independent branches.
> > As I just showed, that has no positive effect when it is in the best
> > interests of those in power to victimize you. Where do the supreme
> > court judges get their pay? From congress.
> They don't set their own pay schedules, do they? And their pay can't
> be diminished.
They're paid by the state. You refuse to see the conflict of
interest.
> > Who appoints the judges?
> > The president. Gee, how "independent."
> Appointed by the president under the advise and consent of the
> Senate. The judges serve for life unless the resign or impeached.
You continue to refuse to admit the conflict of interest.
> > > Then to keep them all honest, the People are the ultimate authority.
> > Your belief that all politicians are honest is infinitely risible.
> Why are you lying again?
> Politicians are people, so like all people, they are fallible.
Me: "Therefore we would do well to refuse to put our faith and trust
in those fallible humans to the extent that we would assent to them
having the power of life and death over us if we don't do as they
command."
You: Therefore, we should give the fallible people our allegiance,
because they can kill us if we don't obey them. After all, might makes
right. <---paraphrasing, not quoting - don't want you to get all huffy
about what it looks to me you believe.
> > > > > > > > In other words, despite the attempt to create a "government" to
> > > > > > > > resolve the conflict, anarchy still exists. Your own brand of logic
> > > > > > > > still comes to the same conclusion as mine.
> > > > > > > You are limiting the meaning of "anarchy" to conflict.
> > > > > > No, I am not. I am including "conflict" as one of the properties of
> > > > > > anarchy, and there are lots of others.
> > > > > Iced tea and hot tea both contain tea. The difference is their
> > > > > temperature.
> > > > > The difference between anarchy and govt is that govt has rules.
>
> > > > There is no magic ingredient in anarchy to prevent people from
> > > > dreaming up rules. There isn't even a magic ingredient in anarchy to
> > > > prevent idiots from wishing there was a Grand High Exalted Mystic
> > > > ruler making the bad guys be good, either. And anarchy can't stop you
> > > > from calling a gang of extortionist lawyers "government," either.
> > > > These are just a few of the endless examples of anarchy - "government"
> > > > is a superstitious myth.
> > > All irrelevant! The most important ingredient is the missing
> > > ingredient. The rules, you dumbass.
>
> > Here's my rule: Anarchy exists. Ignore it at your own risk.
>
> Make sure you keep those "get out of jail free cards" ready, dumbass.
<shrug> Okay . . .
> > > Govt has rules.
> > So do I. Do you believe I'm "government"?
> To the extent you rule yourself, yes.
I'm "government," eh? ed, you're on tilt.
> > > If you want to play the game with no rules, be my
> > > guest. That just makes you a dumbass.
> > In anarchy, I choose the rules, and they aren't all the ones in your
> > cult. Just in case you think I'm kidding, list the rules in your
> > cult. I know you can't do it. Your cult has literally millions of
> > rules (i.e., "laws"), which you insist you need to keep anarchy from
> > happening. Trouble is you don't even know what they are. Even a
> > Christian knows most of his ten commandments. You couldn't even list
> > 1/10th of 1% of your cult's commandments. "But we neeeeeed laws, or
> > anarchy would get us!" How can you need something you know absolutely
> > nothing about?
> Make sure you keep those "get out of jail free cards" ready, dumbass.
Absence of substantive rsponse noted . . .
> > > You sneak around with your "get out of jail free cards", collect all
> > > the benefits, then spout mindless rhetoric like the worthless
> > > hypocrite that you are.
> > How is it hypocritical? Is hypocrisy like saying you neeeeed laws,
> > and then NOT knowing what they are?
> A hypocrite points out the "flaws" in others all the while he is
> guilty of those same flaws.
You believe in a myth. I don't. While I plead guilty to some of the
nasty things I've been accused of, that's not one of them.
--Jackney Sneeb
Jackne...@gmail.com
> Yet you failed to even address one check or balance, 5th grader.
That's because there aren't any. It's a myth.
> > > > Too bad for your argument Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote a book called
> > > > Constitutional Chaos, in which he detailed the antics of those you
> > > > worship as you saviors in power.
> > > Writing a book of anecdotes might get a rise out of the lunatic fringe
> > > like yourself, but not a single man or group of men wield enough power
> > > to mean squat.
> > So when a judge says slaves should be returned to their masters, you
> > think he's right because might makes right,
> No I don't.
Oh, so sometimes might doesn't make right?
> > yet when another one says
> > your cult is in trouble because the bad guys are running amok, you
> > call him a "lunatic fringe."
> No, I call the nuts like you lunatic fringe.
Ad hominem; you're really good at that.
> > > You have a voice and you choose to spout hate.
> > You have said that several times, and I let it go as a spasmodic
> > ejaculation from a silly religious fanatic. now, I'm asking you to
> > put up or shut up: how is it "hate'?
> You never address anything logically. All you spout is hate.
I asked how is it hate. Absence of substantive response noted.
> > How is might-makes-right NOT based on hate?
> Might makes right is based on reality.
I thought you didn't believe in objective right.
> > Like Obama's pledge [he's constitutional law expert, right?] to expand
> > Bush's Faith-Based Initiative, or his approval of FISA, or the Bush
> > regime's USA PATRIOT Act, or "Honest Bill" Clinton's Extraordinary
> > Rendition program, or Richard Nixon's "I am not a crook" speech, or
> > Lyndon Johnson's taped admission that he lied to get the US into an
> > illegal war, or the Dred Scott decision, or prohibition, or the Great
> > Depression, or the mass extortion [income tax], or the failed "War on
> > Drugs," for example?
> > > You attack individuals,
> > Where? Show me who I attacked.
> Read what you wrote in the above paragraph.
Not one individual is attacked there. Not one. I attacked the Faith-
Based Initiative, which deserves to be attacked; I attacked FISA,
which deserves to be attacked; I attacked the USA PATRIOT Act, which
deserves to be attacked; I attacked the Extraordinary Rendition
program, which deserves to be attacked; I attacked the laughable "I am
not a crook" speech, which obviously deserves ridicule; I attacked the
lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which deserves to be attacked;
I attacked the Dred Scott decision, which deserves to be attacked; I
attacked prohibition, which deserves to be attacked; I attacked the
depression whif surely deserves to be attacked; and I attacked legal
extortion. NONE of those things are individuals.
> > > yet you can not mount a single argument
> > > against what makes our form of govt great.
> > All I have done is shown exactly why your belief in "government" is a
> > delusion. Great delusion.
> > > As I have always said, the choice is not between to have govt or not.
> > > The choice is between which govt will you have.
> > I choose self government. That is compatible with anarchy.
> > Apparently, you prefer someone else ruling you. While that is also
> > compatible with anarchy, it is hazardous to you and those around you.
> > --Jackney Sneeb
> Is that why you carry your "get out of jail free cards", hypocrite?
I carry it only because of convenience, not because anyone has a right
to put me in a cage if I don't have one.
The best you can come up with is "hypocrite." That's a sad commentary
on your belief. As I have many times before, if I'm human, I'm a
hypocrite. I don't see how you can expect to have a debate if you
rule out hypocrites.
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 15, 4:53 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Then to keep them all honest, the People are the ultimate authority.
> > > Your belief that all politicians are honest is infinitely risible.
> > Why are you lying again?
> > Politicians are people, so like all people, they are fallible.
>
> Me: "Therefore we would do well to refuse to put our faith and trust
> in those fallible humans to the extent that we would assent to them
> having the power of life and death over us if we don't do as they
> command."
>
> You: Therefore, we should give the fallible people our allegiance,
> because they can kill us if we don't obey them. After all, might makes
> right. <---paraphrasing, not quoting - don't want you to get all huffy
> about what it looks to me you believe.
>
You are just too hateful to get it.
The choice is not between govt or no govt.
The choice is between law or tyranny.
I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the Republic for which it
stands.
I do not pledge allegiance to any man or group of men.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> You are just too hateful to get it.
I still don't know where you get "hate" from.
> The choice is not between govt or no govt.
You're right, there is no option. "Government" is a myth; anarchy
exists.
> The choice is between law or tyranny.
The "law" IS tyranny.
> I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the Republic for which it
> stands.
> I do not pledge allegiance to any man or group of men.
You pledge allegiance to an inanimate object? Idolatry! Jesus won't
like that!
--Jackney Sneeb
Paul Thomas, CPA
<Jackne...@gmail.com> wrote
> I still don't know where you get "hate" from.
You reek of hate Malloy.
Except on days your government check gets deposited in your bank.
--
Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
----------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Jackne...@gmail.com
wrote:
> You reek of hate Malloy.
As a trained psychologist, I assess your remark as "projecting."
--Jackney Sneeb
Paul Thomas, CPA
Jackne...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Going to one doesn't make you "trained".
The Publication Manual of the APA prescribes putting the period inside
the quotation marks.
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 22, 12:54 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > You are just too hateful to get it.
>
> I still don't know where you get "hate" from.
>
Everything with which you disagree you call a "myth", yet you
acquiesce to the requirements imposed by these "myths".
You don't have a drivers license out of convenience.
You have a drivers license because you have tacitly consented.
Convenience is paying $1 for a bottle of soda at the 7-11 around the
corner instead of paying 50 cents for the same soda at the big grocery
store.
> > The choice is not between govt or no govt.
>
> You're right, there is no option. "Government" is a myth; anarchy
> exists.
>
Denial ain't argument.
> > The choice is between law or tyranny.
>
> The "law" IS tyranny.
>
I suppose by putting it in "", you are implying that it is a myth?
LOL.
Whether or not the law is tyranny all depends on who is making the
law, eh?
> > I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the Republic for which it
> > stands.
> > I do not pledge allegiance to any man or group of men.
>
> You pledge allegiance to an inanimate object? Idolatry! Jesus won't
> like that!
> --Jackney Sneeb
Not Idolatry, numbnut. But in the sense of fidelity to an idea in a
better way for society to function.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> JackneySn...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 12:54 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > You are just too hateful to get it.
>
> > I still don't know where you get "hate" from.
>
> Everything with which you disagree you call a "myth", yet you
> acquiesce to the requirements imposed by these "myths".
What does that have to do with "hate"?
> You don't have a drivers license out of convenience.
> You have a drivers license because you have tacitly consented.
I have paid protection. That's all. I don't consent to be ordered
around in some general way (and neither do you) just because I paid
for a driver's license.
> > You're right, there is no option. "Government" is a myth; anarchy
> > exists.
>
> Denial ain't argument.
Absence of substantive response noted.
> > > The choice is between law or tyranny.
>
> > The "law" IS tyranny.
>
> I suppose by putting it in "", you are implying that it is a myth?
No, it means "law" - commandments backed by force - are not more
legitimate just because some suits write them on a piece of paper and
bless it with voting.
> LOL.
> Whether or not the law is tyranny all depends on who is making the
> law, eh?
"Give us your money or we won't protect you from us" is tyranny, no
matter who says it.
> > > I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the Republic for which it
> > > stands.
> > > I do not pledge allegiance to any man or group of men.
>
> > You pledge allegiance to an inanimate object? Idolatry! Jesus won't
> > like that!
> > --Jackney Sneeb
>
> Not Idolatry, numbnut. But in the sense of fidelity to an idea in a
> better way for society to function.
There you go with the relativism again. "Better" is purely
subjective. There is no objective "better."
And idolatry is exactly what it is. How can you pledge undying
loyalty to a piece of cloth and insist that it isn't?
--Jackney Sneeb
Paul Thomas, CPA
<Jackne...@gmail.com> wrote
> The Publication Manual of the APA
> prescribes putting the period inside
> the quotation marks.
"APA"???
American Punctuation mark Association?
Good Lord Malloy. Is that the best you got?
cpt banjo
wrote:
> "Better" is purely subjective. There is no objective "better."
Once again Malloy shows the vacuity of his ideas. If his statement is
true, then anarchy is no better than any other system, and all of his
screeds to the contrary are just so much hot air because there is no
objective standard by which he could ever demonstrate that anything he
says is even remotely valid.
Of course, contradicting himself is part of Malloy's nature, as
exemplified by his receiving government checks while denouncing
government. His motto is "Do as I say, not as I do."
Jackne...@gmail.com
> On Jul 23, 11:35 pm, "JackneySn...@gmail.com" <JackneySn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "Better" is purely subjective. There is no objective "better."
>
> Once again Malloy shows the vacuity of his ideas.
Once again "cpt" banjo breaks his pledge not to react to my posts.
And once again he demonstrates his lack of knowledge of the subject
matter. ed senter's argument is based on the idea that right, wrong,
good, bad, better, worse are all subjective judgments, not objective
truths - not mine.
> If his statement is
> true, then anarchy is no better than any other system,
Well, this is partly true . . .in theory, "government" is better than
anarchy. "Government" promises to make you smarter, richer, thinner,
happier, healthier, safer, and free from bad TV commercials.
"Government" is powerful enough to protect you from crooked
politicians and a billion Red Chinese, yet it is too weak and timid to
kick your own butt.
Anarchy, on the other hand, means you are responsible for your
education, home defense, health, wealth, and overall security.
Anarchy won't save you from disease, death, your own ignorance - or
that of others, for that matter. Under anarchy life can often be
nasty, brutish, and short. "Government" in fact is preferable to
anarchy in every way but one:
THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS "GOVERNMENT"
--Jackney Sneeb
Paul Thomas, CPA
<Jackne...@gmail.com> wrote
> Anarchy, on the other hand, means
"political and social disorder"
also
"a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a
political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association
of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society."
**with the punctuation mark inside the quote - as if that changes things**
Wouldn't a "coercive" government be somethig so subjective that it can't be
objectively measured.
> you are responsible for your education, home
> defense, health, wealth, and overall security.
You are responsible for those things today. We have collectively formed a
group of people we laughling call "government" to perform some of those
functions on our behalf. You can partake of them if you like. Hell, you
know about this because you worked for the collectively formed group we
called "the military" and you currently receive a pension from them.
> Anarchy won't save you from disease, death, your own ignorance
Nor does government for that matter.
--
"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For
those who do not, none will suffice." - Joseph Dunniger
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
Jackne...@gmail.com
wrote:
> >in theory, "government" is better than
> >anarchy. "Government" promises to make you smarter,
> >richer, thinner,happier, healthier, safer, and free from
> >bad TV commercials.
> >"Government" is powerful enough to protect you from
> >crooked politicians and a billion Red Chinese, yet it is
> >too weak and timid to kick your own butt.
> >Anarchy, on the other hand, means you are responsible
> > for your education, home defense, health, wealth, and
> >overall security. Anarchy won't save you from disease,
> >death, your own ignorance - or that of others, for that
> >matter. Under anarchy life can often be nasty, brutish,
> >and short. "Government" in fact is preferable to
> >anarchy in every way but one:
> You are responsible for those things today.
Ergo: anarchy - not "government" - exists.
Q.E.D.
--Jackney Sneeb
Paul Thomas, CPA
<Jackne...@gmail.com> wrote
>> >Anarchy, on the other hand, means you are responsible
>> > for your education, home defense, health, wealth, and
>> >overall security. Anarchy won't save you from disease,
>> >death, your own ignorance - or that of others, for that
>> >matter. Under anarchy life can often be nasty, brutish,
>> >and short. "Government" in fact is preferable to
>> >anarchy in every way but one:
>
>> You are responsible for those things today.
>
> Ergo: anarchy - not "government" - exists.
Whatever dude.
Government does exist. It's what was created by "the cooperative and
voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of
organized society"
So all you are proposing to do is change the term "government" to "anarchy".
Is your entire argument, and therefore your life's work, based on semantics?
I can see that.
Inside the beltway - anarchy.
Under the dome - anarchy.
Inside City Hall - anarchy.
"Hi, my name is Malloy. I'm a retired anarchy worker."
**did I get the punctuation mark in the right place?
Jackne...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <JackneySn...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >> >Anarchy, on the other hand, means you are responsible
> >> > for your education, home defense, health, wealth, and
> >> >overall security.
> > Ergo: anarchy - not "government" - exists.
> Whatever dude.
<shrug>
> Government does exist.
I'm sure you feel that way.
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 23, 5:41 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> > JackneySn...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Jul 22, 12:54 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > You are just too hateful to get it.
> >
> > > I still don't know where you get "hate" from.
> >
> > Everything with which you disagree you call a "myth", yet you
> > acquiesce to the requirements imposed by these "myths".
>
> What does that have to do with "hate"?
>
You'd have to be honest with yourself to understand.
> > You don't have a drivers license out of convenience.
> > You have a drivers license because you have tacitly consented.
>
> I have paid protection. That's all. I don't consent to be ordered
> around in some general way (and neither do you) just because I paid
> for a driver's license.
>
You could not pay;
but you do.
Therefore, you consent.
>
> > > You're right, there is no option. "Government" is a myth; anarchy
> > > exists.
> >
> > Denial ain't argument.
>
> Absence of substantive response noted.
>
More denial so noted.
> > > > The choice is between law or tyranny.
> >
> > > The "law" IS tyranny.
> >
> > I suppose by putting it in "", you are implying that it is a myth?
>
> No, it means "law" - commandments backed by force - are not more
> legitimate just because some suits write them on a piece of paper and
> bless it with voting.
>
What good is a contract if it can't be enforced?
> > LOL.
> > Whether or not the law is tyranny all depends on who is making the
> > law, eh?
>
> "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us" is tyranny, no
> matter who says it.
>
Enforcing a law is not tyranny.
Whether or not a law is tyrannical depends on who made it.
> > > > I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the Republic for which it
> > > > stands.
> > > > I do not pledge allegiance to any man or group of men.
> >
> > > You pledge allegiance to an inanimate object? Idolatry! Jesus won't
> > > like that!
> > > --Jackney Sneeb
> >
> > Not Idolatry, numbnut. But in the sense of fidelity to an idea in a
> > better way for society to function.
>
> There you go with the relativism again. "Better" is purely
> subjective. There is no objective "better."
>
I never said there was. But at what point do subjective observations
become axiomatic?
> And idolatry is exactly what it is. How can you pledge undying
> loyalty to a piece of cloth and insist that it isn't?
> --Jackney Sneeb
I don't pledge "undying loyalty" to anything unless it is God.
Show me something better and I will shift my allegiance. (hint: it
ain't anarchy)
Jackne...@gmail.com
> > What does that have to do with "hate"?
>
> You'd have to be honest with yourself to understand.
Yet another non-response noted . . .
> You could not pay;
> but you do.
> Therefore, you consent.
Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur . . .
> > No, it means "law" - commandments backed by force - are not more
> > legitimate just because some suits write them on a piece of paper and
> > bless it with voting.
>
> What good is a contract if it can't be enforced?
What contract? The law is a unilateral command backed by force; a
contract is a legal term for mutual agreement - two very different
things.
> > "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us" is tyranny, no
> > matter who says it.
>
> Enforcing a law is not tyranny.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's
will, and always so when it violates the rights of the
individual."~Thomas Jefferson
When the "law" coincides with what is morally right, it can be the
instrument of justice; when it is robbery, murder, and plunder, it is
tyranny.
> Whether or not a law is tyrannical depends on who made it.
"Give us your money or we won't protect you from us" is tyranny no
matter who says it.
> > There you go with the relativism again. "Better" is purely
> > subjective. There is no objective "better."
> I never said there was.
<shrug>
>But at what point do subjective observations become axiomatic?
When literally everyone on the planet agrees with you.
> > And idolatry is exactly what it is. How can you pledge undying
> > loyalty to a piece of cloth and insist that it isn't?
> > --Jackney Sneeb
>
> I don't pledge "undying loyalty" to anything unless it is God.
> Show me something better and I will shift my allegiance. (hint: it
> ain't anarchy)
Which "god"? Consider the Hindu gods, the Muslim god, the gods of the
ancient Greeks and Romans. If you can understand why you don't
believe in them, you can understand why I don't believe in yours.
If you pledge allegiance to an inanimate object - a piece of cloth -
how are you different from an idolator?
--Jackney Sneeb
Paul Thomas, CPA
"nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote
> Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I have paid protection. That's all. I don't consent to be ordered
>> around in some general way (and neither do you) just because I paid
>> for a driver's license.
>>
>
> You could not pay;
> but you do.
> Therefore, you consent.
He pays his taxes too.....well, they're "withheld" so he can claim that he
*doesn't pay* his taxes (as in writing a check for them).
--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Watkinsville, Georgia
paultho...@bellsouth.net
WARNING: This post may contain violent
punctuation, explicit grammatical errors,
and a shocking ending with a preposition.
Paul Thomas, CPA
<Jackne...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Government does exist.
>
> I'm sure you feel that way.
You feel that way to.
Government is nothing more, or less, than:
"the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the
principal mode of organized society"
as found here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy
And once the society is organized:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/government
"Administration or management of an organization"
All your argument cooks down to is a name change.
Paul Thomas, CPA
<Jackne...@gmail.com> wrote
> "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
> limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.
Those "limits" have, over time, become the laws of the land. The "equal
rights" have, over time, become the laws of the land.
And, over time the "cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and
groups as the principal mode of organized society" has been formalized into
the "administration or management of [that] organization" and we have come
to call it "government".
By your voluntary association with other individuals and/or groups you have
given implied consent to abide by the group's version of what "equal rights"
are. Of course, the very act of your participation in that group changes
the group's dynamics as well as their net views on "equal rights", even if
it is ever so slightly. That proof is in the pudding, in that the
historical changes of what society deems what is right, and what is wrong
has changed over time. The tighter the society is - less turnover of that
group - the slower any changes have been. The more open the society is -
more and varied turnover of the group - is where you'll see the greatest and
faster changes will be found. Whether those changes are good for the group
as a whole is for time to tell.
So yes Malloy, you believe in and participate in "government".
Jackne...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <JackneySn...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
> > limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.
>
> Those "limits" have, over time, become the laws of the land.
I'm sure you feel that way.
> By your voluntary association with other individuals and/or groups you have
> given implied consent to abide by the group's version of what "equal rights"
> are.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
> So yes Malloy, you believe in and participate in "government".
I'm sure you feel I believe in your god.
--Jackney Sneeb
Paul Thomas, CPA
P. Maffia
insure they don't com to him for not paying his taxes.
Nevertheless, chances are did at least file his tax return this year so he
could get the rebate.
Let's face it, Cobra Jack is a hypocrite as well as a liar.
"Paul Thomas, CPA" <paultho...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:0Kjik.6948$P8....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
Jackne...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Is that the best you got?
It trumps YOUR bullshit.
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 24, 10:18 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > What does that have to do with "hate"?
> >
> > You'd have to be honest with yourself to understand.
>
> Yet another non-response noted . . .
>
You're not honest; therefore, you don't understand.
<shrug>
> > You could not pay;
> > but you do.
> > Therefore, you consent.
>
> Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur . . .
>
The law says get a drivers license before you can drive.
You get a drivers license.
Walla, you consent.
Compliance is consent.
It's a simple concept.
>
> > > No, it means "law" - commandments backed by force - are not more
> > > legitimate just because some suits write them on a piece of paper and
> > > bless it with voting.
> >
> > What good is a contract if it can't be enforced?
>
> What contract?
The Constitution?
> The law is a unilateral command backed by force; a
> contract is a legal term for mutual agreement - two very different
> things.
>
A unilateral command is tyranny.
The law can be bilateral, don'tcha know.
The indicia of a contract are offer and acceptance.
Therefore, a law may be considered a contract.
> > > "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us" is tyranny, no
> > > matter who says it.
> >
> > Enforcing a law is not tyranny.
>
> "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
> limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
> 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's
> will, and always so when it violates the rights of the
> individual."~Thomas Jefferson
>
No shit.
That's why TJ was all for revolution.
> When the "law" coincides with what is morally right, it can be the
> instrument of justice; when it is robbery, murder, and plunder, it is
> tyranny.
>
No shit, again.
> > Whether or not a law is tyrannical depends on who made it.
>
> "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us" is tyranny no
> matter who says it.
>
<shrug>
>
> > > There you go with the relativism again. "Better" is purely
> > > subjective. There is no objective "better."
> > I never said there was.
>
> <shrug>
>
> >But at what point do subjective observations become axiomatic?
>
> When literally everyone on the planet agrees with you.
>
Ah, MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.
I knew you would come around to the truth.
> > > And idolatry is exactly what it is. How can you pledge undying
> > > loyalty to a piece of cloth and insist that it isn't?
> > > --Jackney Sneeb
> >
> > I don't pledge "undying loyalty" to anything unless it is God.
> > Show me something better and I will shift my allegiance. (hint: it
> > ain't anarchy)
>
> Which "god"?
There can only be one God, i.e, Supreme Being. If there were any more
than one, He wouldn't be Supreme, eh?
> Consider the Hindu gods, the Muslim god, the gods of the
> ancient Greeks and Romans. If you can understand why you don't
> believe in them, you can understand why I don't believe in yours.
>
<shrug>
> If you pledge allegiance to an inanimate object - a piece of cloth -
> how are you different from an idolator?
>
God knows the heart.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> The Constitution?
The constitution is a concoction dreamed up by a bunch of guys who are
now dead. It set limits (supposedly - it didn't really) on federal
power. It wasn't an agreement between the signers and anyone else.
It was a unilateral declaration, signed by a tiny group and not agreed
upon by anyone else. How can you be bound by an "agreement" made
before you were born? By men who were dead long before you arrived?
A contract is a legal construct. It has essential elements such as
offer, acceptance, meeting of minds (of the parties agreeing to the
deal), consideration, and competent parties. None of that applies to
the constitution. The constitution doesn't say "we the people agree
to abide by . . ." or "In consideration for x, the state promises to
do y. . . " It isn't a contract. It's not even a magical piece of
paper that can limit "government." It's just a piece of paper with
some scribbles on it that you can interpret any old way you want.
Here's what it says to me: 1) "Congress shall have power to lay and
collect taxes" and 2) "Congress shall have power to suppress
insurrections," and when put together they mean "We can take your
dough in whatever amount we like, and if you resist we are prepared to
kill you." That's tyranny. You don't agree. Tough.
> > The law is a unilateral command backed by force; a
> > contract is a legal term for mutual agreement - two very different
> > things.
>
> A unilateral command is tyranny.
No shit. That's what I just said.
> > "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
> > limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
> > 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's
> > will, and always so when it violates the rights of the
> > individual."~Thomas Jefferson
> No shit.
No shit.
> That's why TJ was all for revolution.
Is that why the constitution says congress shall have power to
suppress insurrections?
> > When the "law" coincides with what is morally right, it can be the
> > instrument of justice; when it is robbery, murder, and plunder, it is
> > tyranny.
> No shit, again.
We agree on something!
> > "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us" is tyranny no
> > matter who says it.
> <shrug>
No shit.
> > >But at what point do subjective observations become axiomatic?
> > When literally everyone on the planet agrees with you.
> Ah, MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.
No. When everyone agrees with you, your subjective observation
becomes axiomatic (whatever that means). Whether it is right or not
is a matter of individual judgment.
> > Which "god"?
> There can only be one God, i.e, Supreme Being. If there were any more
> than one, He wouldn't be Supreme, eh?
You don''t know which one. Okay . . .
<shrug>
--Jackney Sneeb
PS - if your god is running the show, what do you need to believe in
"government" [made up of mere mortals] for?
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 25, 6:40 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > The Constitution?
>
> The constitution is a concoction dreamed up by a bunch of guys who are
> now dead. It set limits (supposedly - it didn't really) on federal
> power. It wasn't an agreement between the signers and anyone else.
> It was a unilateral declaration, signed by a tiny group and not agreed
> upon by anyone else.
It was proposed by representatives in Congress assembled and ratified
by representatives of the People. Hence, offer and acceptance.
> How can you be bound by an "agreement" made
> before you were born? By men who were dead long before you arrived?
>
That's easy. You partake of the benefits.
> A contract is a legal construct. It has essential elements such as
> offer, acceptance, meeting of minds (of the parties agreeing to the
> deal), consideration, and competent parties. None of that applies to
> the constitution. The constitution doesn't say "we the people agree
> to abide by . . ." or "In consideration for x, the state promises to
> do y. . . " It isn't a contract.
It was proposed (an offer) and ratified (acceptance). That's a
contract.
> It's not even a magical piece of
> paper that can limit "government." It's just a piece of paper with
> some scribbles on it that you can interpret any old way you want.
That's just like you define words "any old way you want", thus you
expose your intellectual dishonesty.
> Here's what it says to me: 1) "Congress shall have power to lay and
> collect taxes" and 2) "Congress shall have power to suppress
> insurrections," and when put together they mean "We can take your
> dough in whatever amount we like, and if you resist we are prepared to
> kill you."
You are such a nihilist.
Yes, Congress can tax the People until they are destitute. But why
would they? They are not that stupid.
Your contention is beyond all reason.
And, since the People have the right to keep and bear arms, thus the
People maintain ultimate authority, your contention is beyond absurd.
> That's tyranny.
Tyranny is unilateral and despotic.
> You don't agree. Tough.
Gee, you sure are tyrannical.
>
>
> > > The law is a unilateral command backed by force; a
> > > contract is a legal term for mutual agreement - two very different
> > > things.
> >
> > A unilateral command is tyranny.
>
> No shit. That's what I just said.
>
No you didn't, liar.
You said, "the law is a unilateral command backed by force" which is
wrong.
The law can be bilateral, dumbass.
>
> > > "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
> > > limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
> > > 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's
> > > will, and always so when it violates the rights of the
> > > individual."~Thomas Jefferson
> > No shit.
>
> No shit.
>
> > That's why TJ was all for revolution.
>
> Is that why the constitution says congress shall have power to
> suppress insurrections?
>
No, the power to suppress insurrections was to control lunatics like
you from turning into terrorists.
> > > When the "law" coincides with what is morally right, it can be the
> > > instrument of justice; when it is robbery, murder, and plunder, it is
> > > tyranny.
> > No shit, again.
>
> We agree on something!
>
>
> > > "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us" is tyranny no
> > > matter who says it.
> > <shrug>
>
> No shit.
>
>
> > > >But at what point do subjective observations become axiomatic?
> > > When literally everyone on the planet agrees with you.
> > Ah, MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.
>
> No. When everyone agrees with you, your subjective observation
> becomes axiomatic (whatever that means). Whether it is right or not
> is a matter of individual judgment.
>
Sheesh, when "everyone agrees", that sure is a lot of might. You sure
are dense, dumbass.
>
> > > Which "god"?
> > There can only be one God, i.e, Supreme Being. If there were any more
> > than one, He wouldn't be Supreme, eh?
>
> You don''t know which one. Okay . . .
> <shrug>
> --Jackney Sneeb
>
There can only be one God. All of those brands of religion out there
are just various ways they believe are the path to get right with God.
> PS - if your god is running the show, what do you need to believe in
> "government" [made up of mere mortals] for?
God is running the show for sure, but He also gave us free will.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> > The constitution is a concoction dreamed up by a bunch of guys who are
> > now dead.
> It was proposed by representatives in Congress assembled and ratified
> by representatives of the People. Hence, offer and acceptance.
Wrong. They represented themselves (and maybe a few other rich
landholders, smugglers, tax evaders, and slave owners.
> > How can you be bound by an "agreement" made
> > before you were born? By men who were dead long before you arrived?
> That's easy. You partake of the benefits.
The Mafia provides concrete for roads in parts of the country. You
therefore agreed to obey the commands of the Mafia? Wrong answer.
> > A contract is a legal construct. It has essential elements such as
> > offer, acceptance, meeting of minds (of the parties agreeing to the
> > deal), consideration, and competent parties. None of that applies to
> > the constitution. The constitution doesn't say "we the people agree
> > to abide by . . ." or "In consideration for x, the state promises to
> > do y. . . " It isn't a contract.
>
> It was proposed (an offer) and ratified (acceptance). That's a
> contract.
There was no offer. There was no acceptance by anyone other than the
few who signed it. There was only a unilateral statement about
setting up a federal state signed by a few dozen men who are now dead,
and all the document supposedly did was define and LIMIT federal
power. That was its sole purported purpose, and it didn't even work
at that. there was no "meeting of the minds" (how could you and I have
met them before we were born?), no consideration, no representation -
no nothing. There isn't even any authority in it. It's a made-up
piece of politician scribbles that has no more inherent legitimacy
than any other religious screed, like the bible or the Q'uran for
example.
> > It's not even a magical piece of
> > paper that can limit "government." It's just a piece of paper with
> > some scribbles on it that you can interpret any old way you want.
> That's just like you define words "any old way you want", thus you
> expose your intellectual dishonesty.
Nice tantrum.
<shrug>
> > Here's what it says to me: 1) "Congress shall have power to lay and
> > collect taxes" and 2) "Congress shall have power to suppress
> > insurrections," and when put together they mean "We can take your
> > dough in whatever amount we like, and if you resist we are prepared to
> > kill you."
> You are such a nihilist.
Ad hominem instead of a rational response.
<shrug>
> Yes, Congress can tax the People until they are destitute. But why
> would they? They are not that stupid.
> Your contention is beyond all reason.
The fact that congress CAN tax people until we are desitute - or to
any degree above that - in no way counters what I said. In fact, if
anything, it corroborates it.
> And, since the People have the right to keep and bear arms, thus the
> People maintain ultimate authority, your contention is beyond absurd.
Are you recommending armed revolt?
> > That's tyranny.
> Tyranny is unilateral and despotic.
That's right, that's the United States.
> > > > The law is a unilateral command backed by force; a
> > > > contract is a legal term for mutual agreement - two very different
> > > > things.
>
> > > A unilateral command is tyranny.
>
> > No shit. That's what I just said.
>
> No you didn't, liar.
Me: "The law is a unilateral command backed by force;"
You: "A unilateral command is tyranny."
Me: " The law is tyranny." Q.E.D.
> You said, "the law is a unilateral command backed by force" which is
> wrong.
> The law can be bilateral, dumbass.
"Give us your money or we won't protect you from us" is pretty much
unilateral.
> > > That's why TJ was all for revolution.
> > Is that why the constitution says congress shall have power to
> > suppress insurrections?
> No, the power to suppress insurrections was to control lunatics like
> you from turning into terrorists.
I'm for less violence, specifically a lot less institutionalized
violence on the part of the state. You support that violence. It is
your position that is terrorist. I remind you that I haven't killed
anyone since I gave up the belief in "government," which I couldn't
claim back in the days when I did believe in it.
> > No. When everyone agrees with you, your subjective observation
> > becomes axiomatic (whatever that means). Whether it is right or not
> > is a matter of individual judgment.
> Sheesh, when "everyone agrees", that sure is a lot of might. You sure
> are dense, dumbass.
When everyone agrees with you, you might have a point. Let me know
when that happens - just try to avoid holding your breath
waiting . . .
> > > > Which "god"?
> > > There can only be one God, i.e, Supreme Being. If there were any more
> > > than one, He wouldn't be Supreme, eh?
>
> > You don''t know which one. Okay . . .
> > <shrug>
> > --Jackney Sneeb
>
> There can only be one God.
Which one are you talking about? Jove? Zeus? Zarathustra? Zoul?
Allah? Brahma? Gaia? Toyo-Uke-Bime? Si-Wang-Mu? Rama? Jesus?
Orgelmir? Parvati? Thor? Mummu? Ishtar? Of all the gods you have to
choose from, please specify the one true god you are talking about,
and provide a brief description, please.
> God is running the show for sure, but He also gave us free will.
God is running things, and also he lets you run things, too. How can
he be all powerful if he lets YOU decide stuff on your own?
--Jackney Sneeb
P. Maffia
"Bob" <bo...@soc.eert.edu> wrote in message
news:cp4p8455cgf3o8amv...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:05:12 -0700 (PDT), "Jackne...@gmail.com"
> <Jackne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <all kinds of great stuff showing the state worshipers how illogical thier
> positions are>
>
> Thanks for making your presence known here again Onry. Missed you for
> many
> years and hope you stay for a while...
>
> P.S. God Bless Jackney Sneeb (I know you don't believe in Him, but I
> do...
> and I'm an anarchist!!)
>
nat
Bob wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:05:12 -0700 (PDT), "Jackne...@gmail.com"
> <Jackne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <all kinds of great stuff showing the state worshipers how illogical thier
> positions are>
>
LMAO
You have just proven that you know nothing about logic.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> > <JackneySn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <all kinds of great stuff showing the state worshipers how illogical thier
> > positions are>
>
> LMAO
> You have just proven that you know nothing about logic.
And ed senter knows all about logic: On Aug 29 2003, 4:25 pm, esenter
<esen...@airmail.net> wrote: "The fact that Jesus lived is not
difficult to prove . . . The fact that he resurrected from the dead is
not difficult to prove."
<eyeroll>
--Jackney Sneeb
P. Maffia
"nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9d592498-a490-438c...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 26, 12:40 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > The constitution is a concoction dreamed up by a bunch of guys who are
> > > now dead.
> > It was proposed by representatives in Congress assembled and ratified
> > by representatives of the People. Hence, offer and acceptance.
>
> Wrong. They represented themselves (and maybe a few other rich
> landholders, smugglers, tax evaders, and slave owners.
>
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
Look up representative govt.
> > > How can you be bound by an "agreement" made
> > > before you were born? By men who were dead long before you arrived?
> > That's easy. You partake of the benefits.
>
> The Mafia provides concrete for roads in parts of the country. You
> therefore agreed to obey the commands of the Mafia? Wrong answer.
>
Wrong question, dumbass.
Since when does a vendor make the rules?- NEVER.
> > > A contract is a legal construct. It has essential elements such as
> > > offer, acceptance, meeting of minds (of the parties agreeing to the
> > > deal), consideration, and competent parties. None of that applies to
> > > the constitution. The constitution doesn't say "we the people agree
> > > to abide by . . ." or "In consideration for x, the state promises to
> > > do y. . . " It isn't a contract.
> >
> > It was proposed (an offer) and ratified (acceptance). That's a
> > contract.
>
> There was no offer. There was no acceptance by anyone other than the
> few who signed it.
The Constitution was ratified by the States, dumbass.
> There was only a unilateral statement about
> setting up a federal state signed by a few dozen men who are now dead,
> and all the document supposedly did was define and LIMIT federal
> power. That was its sole purported purpose, and it didn't even work
> at that. there was no "meeting of the minds" (how could you and I have
> met them before we were born?), no consideration, no representation -
> no nothing. There isn't even any authority in it. It's a made-up
> piece of politician scribbles that has no more inherent legitimacy
> than any other religious screed, like the bible or the Q'uran for
> example.
>
That's what Sadam Hussein said before they hung him.
You really are a dumbass.
>
> > > Here's what it says to me: 1) "Congress shall have power to lay and
> > > collect taxes" and 2) "Congress shall have power to suppress
> > > insurrections," and when put together they mean "We can take your
> > > dough in whatever amount we like, and if you resist we are prepared to
> > > kill you."
> > You are such a nihilist.
>
> Ad hominem instead of a rational response.
> <shrug>
>
It is an accurate description of your philosophy.
> > Yes, Congress can tax the People until they are destitute. But why
> > would they? They are not that stupid.
> > Your contention is beyond all reason.
>
> The fact that congress CAN tax people until we are desitute - or to
> any degree above that - in no way counters what I said. In fact, if
> anything, it corroborates it.
>
The question was "But why would they?"
> > And, since the People have the right to keep and bear arms, thus the
> > People maintain ultimate authority, your contention is beyond absurd.
>
> Are you recommending armed revolt?
>
Why would I do that?
However, inherent in the 2nd Amendment is the right to revolt if need
be.
But take heed, you had better have the might. See, for example, the
Confederate States.
> > > That's tyranny.
> > Tyranny is unilateral and despotic.
>
> That's right, that's the United States.
>
Liar, the United States is a representative govt.
>
> > > > > The law is a unilateral command backed by force; a
> > > > > contract is a legal term for mutual agreement - two very different
> > > > > things.
> >
> > > > A unilateral command is tyranny.
> >
> > > No shit. That's what I just said.
> >
> > No you didn't, liar.
>
> Me: "The law is a unilateral command backed by force;"
> You: "A unilateral command is tyranny."
> Me: " The law is tyranny." Q.E.D.
And I said THE LAW IS NOT A UNILATERAL COMMAND.
When will you learn some logic, dumbass?
> > You said, "the law is a unilateral command backed by force" which is
> > wrong.
> > The law can be bilateral, dumbass.
>
> "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us" is pretty much
> unilateral.
>
It is not when you have representative govt, dumbass.
> > > > That's why TJ was all for revolution.
> > > Is that why the constitution says congress shall have power to
> > > suppress insurrections?
> > No, the power to suppress insurrections was to control lunatics like
> > you from turning into terrorists.
>
> I'm for less violence, specifically a lot less institutionalized
> violence on the part of the state.
Tell that to someone like the Sudanese.
>You support that violence.
LIar.
> It is
> your position that is terrorist. I remind you that I haven't killed
> anyone since I gave up the belief in "government," which I couldn't
> claim back in the days when I did believe in it.
>
Are you on a guilt trip, little boy malloy? I have never killed any
one.
> > > No. When everyone agrees with you, your subjective observation
> > > becomes axiomatic (whatever that means). Whether it is right or not
> > > is a matter of individual judgment.
> > Sheesh, when "everyone agrees", that sure is a lot of might. You sure
> > are dense, dumbass.
>
> When everyone agrees with you, you might have a point. Let me know
> when that happens - just try to avoid holding your breath
> waiting . . .
>
Most people around here think life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness are self-evident truths.
We went to war over it.
> > > > > Which "god"?
> > > > There can only be one God, i.e, Supreme Being. If there were any more
> > > > than one, He wouldn't be Supreme, eh?
> >
> > > You don''t know which one. Okay . . .
> > > <shrug>
> > > --Jackney Sneeb
> >
> > There can only be one God.
>
> Which one are you talking about? Jove? Zeus? Zarathustra? Zoul?
> Allah? Brahma? Gaia? Toyo-Uke-Bime? Si-Wang-Mu? Rama? Jesus?
> Orgelmir? Parvati? Thor? Mummu? Ishtar? Of all the gods you have to
> choose from, please specify the one true god you are talking about,
> and provide a brief description, please.
>
All of which you list are ways to get right with the only God that
exists.
The only sure way to do that is through Jesus Christ.
> > God is running the show for sure, but He also gave us free will.
>
> God is running things, and also he lets you run things, too. How can
> he be all powerful if he lets YOU decide stuff on your own?
> --Jackney Sneeb
We all have the free will to jump off a cliff; but, that ain't going
to keep anyone from smashing his brains.
Just because we have free will, that doesn't take away any of God's
power.
nat
Once again, little boy malloy proves he knows nothing about logic.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> Look up representative govt.
"Government" is a delusion. Representative "government" is a
representative delusion.
> > The Mafia provides concrete for roads in parts of the country. You
> > therefore agreed to obey the commands of the Mafia? Wrong answer.
> Wrong question, dumbass.
> Since when does a vendor make the rules?- NEVER.
Anyone at all can make rules. You and your fellow state-worshippers -
notabaly Brian Rookard - have observed time after time that parents
make rules for children. Anyone can make rules. Violate the Mafia's
rules and see what happens. (The consequences they inflict on you
don't make them right, just like the consequences the oinkers can lay
on you don't make them right either.)
Notice how angry you get. You can't make a retort without including a
nasty insult.
> > > > A contract is a legal construct. It has essential elements such as
> > > > offer, acceptance, meeting of minds (of the parties agreeing to the
> > > > deal), consideration, and competent parties. None of that applies to
> > > > the constitution. The constitution doesn't say "we the people agree
> > > > to abide by . . ." or "In consideration for x, the state promises to
> > > > do y. . . " It isn't a contract.
>
> > > It was proposed (an offer) and ratified (acceptance). That's a
> > > contract.
> > There was no offer. There was no acceptance by anyone other than the
> > few who signed it.
> The Constitution was ratified by the States, dumbass.
States aren't "the people." States aren't even sentient entities.
States cannot sign away your rights. They can't sign anything. The
constitution was signed by real individuals representing the religious
quacks, smugglers, tax evaders, traitors, and slave-owners who
violently overthrew their lawful rulers. I am shocked - SHOCKED!
- that you would approve of such anarchic behavior.
In any event, the constitution isn't a contract by any stretch of the
imagination.
> That's what Sadam Hussein said before they hung him.
No it isn't. [And proper English is "hanged."] Bonehead remark noted.
> It is an accurate description of your philosophy.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
> > > Yes, Congress can tax the People until they are destitute. But why
> > > would they? They are not that stupid.
> > > Your contention is beyond all reason.
> > The fact that congress CAN tax people until we are desitute - or to
> > any degree above that - in no way counters what I said. In fact, if
> > anything, it corroborates it.
> The question was "But why would they?"
Because they make money the old fashioned way - they STEAL it. And
most politicians know the old adage "You can shear a sheep many times,
but you can only skin him once."
> > > And, since the People have the right to keep and bear arms, thus the
> > > People maintain ultimate authority, your contention is beyond absurd.
> > Are you recommending armed revolt?
> Why would I do that?
How can "the people" be the ultimate "authority" if you don't want
them to use their guns?
> However, inherent in the 2nd Amendment is the right to revolt if need
> be.
Where? How can the constitution recognize a RIGHT to revolt, and also
prescribe congress the power to suppress insurrection? That's just
one of the contradictions in your blind faith in a piece of paper to
grant you your "rights" (whatever they are).
> But take heed, you had better have the might. See, for example, the
> Confederate States.
You say people have the right to revolt, yet you applaud the tyrants
who stomped on their right? Oh yeah - I remember - you believe might
makes right! So much for god granting you your rights, like it says
in the Declaration of Independence, huh!
> > > > That's tyranny.
> > > Tyranny is unilateral and despotic.
> > That's right, that's the United States.
> Liar, the United States is a representative govt.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
> > Me: "The law is a unilateral command backed by force;"
> > You: "A unilateral command is tyranny."
> > Me: " The law is tyranny." Q.E.D.
> And I said THE LAW IS NOT A UNILATERAL COMMAND.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
> > "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us" is pretty much
> > unilateral.
> It is not when you have representative govt, dumbass.
"Representative government" is a myth. Pure propaganda to keep you
compliant and subservient.
> > > > > That's why TJ was all for revolution.
> > > > Is that why the constitution says congress shall have power to
> > > > suppress insurrections?
> > > No, the power to suppress insurrections was to control lunatics like
> > > you from turning into terrorists.
> > I'm for less violence, specifically a lot less institutionalized
> > violence on the part of the state.
> Tell that to someone like the Sudanese.
Are you talking about "Honest" Bill's bombing of an aspirin factory in
Sudan to distract from his impeachment hearings? You just PROVED my
point.
["Bill Clinton's attack on the al-Shifa pharmaceuticals factory in
Sudan in August 1998, on the entirely bogus grounds that it was really
manufacturing anthrax instead of aspirin." ~ http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0802-03.htm
]
> >You support that violence.
> LIar.
<shrug> Name-calling doesn't refute my assertion. Do you support what
"Honest Bill" did in bombing the Sudanese aspirin factory? He got
away with it. If you don't support it, how does that square with your
"might-makes-right" theory? If you DO support it, how are you NOT in
favor of violence?
> > It is
> > your position that is terrorist. I remind you that I haven't killed
> > anyone since I gave up the belief in "government," which I couldn't
> > claim back in the days when I did believe in it.
> Are you on a guilt trip, little boy malloy? I have never killed any
> one.
I have, and it was only when I believed in "government" as you do.
And I suspect that you have never been ordered to kill anyone. It's
easy to be an armchair authoritarian, isn't it. I'm sure if your
Grand High Exalted Mystic Rulers in Washington DC ordered you to shove
Jews into ovens you'd be very sad, as you explained to your victims
that might makes right, but that you're trying to get the law changed.
> > > > No. When everyone agrees with you, your subjective observation
> > > > becomes axiomatic (whatever that means). Whether it is right or not
> > > > is a matter of individual judgment.
> > > Sheesh, when "everyone agrees", that sure is a lot of might. You sure
> > > are dense, dumbass.
> > When everyone agrees with you, you might have a point. Let me know
> > when that happens - just try to avoid holding your breath
> > waiting . . .
>
> Most people . . .
. . .aren't everyone.
> . . .around here think life, liberty and the pursuit of
> happiness are self-evident truths.
> We went to war over it.
No you didn't. You just asserted you never killed anyone.
> > > > > > Which "god"?
> > > > > There can only be one God, i.e, Supreme Being. If there were any more
> > > > > than one, He wouldn't be Supreme, eh?
> > > > You don''t know which one. Okay . . .
> > > > <shrug>
> > > > --Jackney Sneeb
> > > There can only be one God.
> > Which one are you talking about? Jove? Zeus? Zarathustra? Zoul?
> > Allah? Brahma? Gaia? Toyo-Uke-Bime? Si-Wang-Mu? Rama? Jesus?
> > Orgelmir? Parvati? Thor? Mummu? Ishtar? Of all the gods you have to
> > choose from, please specify the one true god you are talking about,
> > and provide a brief description, please.
> All of which you list are ways to get right with the only God that
> exists.
> The only sure way to do that is through Jesus Christ.
I thought so - the dead Jew on a stick again . . .Now explain why you
don't believe in all the other gods, and you'll know why I don't
believe in yours.
> > > God is running the show for sure, but He also gave us free will.
> > God is running things, and also he lets you run things, too. How can
> > he be all powerful if he lets YOU decide stuff on your own?
> > --Jackney Sneeb
> We all have the free will to jump off a cliff; but, that ain't going
> to keep anyone from smashing his brains.
You also have the free will to molest kids, rape women, hang
minorites, beat up homosexuals, and shove Jews into ovens. When your
politicians order you to do things like that, YOU believe might makes
right, and as long as you can get away with it - it IS right, and
screw what God thinks!
> Just because we have free will, that doesn't take away any of God's
> power.
What power? You said if Hitler had maintained power HE would be
right today! You said whatever your beloved "authority" can get away
with determines "right." Where does your god fit into that equation?
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 27, 4:33 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Look up representative govt.
>
> "Government" is a delusion. Representative "government" is a
> representative delusion.
>
Yep, you are not as smart as a 5th grader.
> > > The Mafia provides concrete for roads in parts of the country. You
> > > therefore agreed to obey the commands of the Mafia? Wrong answer.
> > Wrong question, dumbass.
> > Since when does a vendor make the rules?- NEVER.
>
> Anyone at all can make rules.
Rules don't mean squat unless they can be enforced, dumbass.
> You can't make a retort without including a
> nasty insult.
>
Tit for tat, dumbass.
> > > > > A contract is a legal construct. It has essential elements such as
> > > > > offer, acceptance, meeting of minds (of the parties agreeing to the
> > > > > deal), consideration, and competent parties. None of that applies to
> > > > > the constitution. The constitution doesn't say "we the people agree
> > > > > to abide by . . ." or "In consideration for x, the state promises to
> > > > > do y. . . " It isn't a contract.
> >
> > > > It was proposed (an offer) and ratified (acceptance). That's a
> > > > contract.
> > > There was no offer. There was no acceptance by anyone other than the
> > > few who signed it.
> > The Constitution was ratified by the States, dumbass.
>
> States aren't "the people."
>
They are in this country, dumbass.
> In any event, the constitution isn't a contract by any stretch of the
> imagination.
>
> > That's what Sadam Hussein said before they hung him.
>
> No it isn't. [And proper English is "hanged."] Bonehead remark noted.
>
Tit for tat, dumbass.
>
> > It is an accurate description of your philosophy.
>
> Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
>
Words have meanings. You're a nihilist.
> > > > Yes, Congress can tax the People until they are destitute. But why
> > > > would they? They are not that stupid.
> > > > Your contention is beyond all reason.
> > > The fact that congress CAN tax people until we are desitute - or to
> > > any degree above that - in no way counters what I said. In fact, if
> > > anything, it corroborates it.
> > The question was "But why would they?"
>
> Because they make money the old fashioned way - they STEAL it. And
> most politicians know the old adage "You can shear a sheep many times,
> but you can only skin him once."
>
Taxation ain't theft no matter how long you hold your breath, little
boy malloy.
> > > > And, since the People have the right to keep and bear arms, thus the
> > > > People maintain ultimate authority, your contention is beyond absurd.
> > > Are you recommending armed revolt?
> > Why would I do that?
>
> How can "the people" be the ultimate "authority" if you don't want
> them to use their guns?
>
Responsible people know when to use them. Hint: not for fun.
> > However, inherent in the 2nd Amendment is the right to revolt if need
> > be.
>
> Where? How can the constitution recognize a RIGHT to revolt, and also
> prescribe congress the power to suppress insurrection? That's just
> one of the contradictions in your blind faith in a piece of paper to
> grant you your "rights" (whatever they are).
>
Take a class and learn the meaning of paradox, little boy malloy.
> > But take heed, you had better have the might. See, for example, the
> > Confederate States.
>
> You say people have the right to revolt, yet you applaud the tyrants
> who stomped on their right?
Liar.
> Oh yeah - I remember - you believe might
> makes right! So much for god granting you your rights, like it says
> in the Declaration of Independence, huh!
>
I am not so presumptuous to claim God grants me anything. I am happy
to be alive and have the chance to learn.
> > > > > That's tyranny.
> > > > Tyranny is unilateral and despotic.
> > > That's right, that's the United States.
> > Liar, the United States is a representative govt.
>
> Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
>
Some words are self-explanatory.
> > > Me: "The law is a unilateral command backed by force;"
> > > You: "A unilateral command is tyranny."
> > > Me: " The law is tyranny." Q.E.D.
> > And I said THE LAW IS NOT A UNILATERAL COMMAND.
>
> Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
>
Back at you, dumbass.
> > > "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us" is pretty much
> > > unilateral.
> > It is not when you have representative govt, dumbass.
>
> "Representative government" is a myth. Pure propaganda to keep you
> compliant and subservient.
>
Oh, yeah, you must be a conspiracy geek.
In the land of free expression, you'd really have to be dense to
believe some of the nonsense you post.
> > > > > > That's why TJ was all for revolution.
> > > > > Is that why the constitution says congress shall have power to
> > > > > suppress insurrections?
> > > > No, the power to suppress insurrections was to control lunatics like
> > > > you from turning into terrorists.
> > > I'm for less violence, specifically a lot less institutionalized
> > > violence on the part of the state.
> > Tell that to someone like the Sudanese.
>
> Are you talking about "Honest" Bill's bombing of an aspirin factory in
> Sudan to distract from his impeachment hearings? You just PROVED my
> point.
>
>
No, I am talking about the genocide going on there. Don't you keep up
with the news?
>
> > >You support that violence.
> > LIar.
>
> <shrug> Name-calling doesn't refute my assertion.
Things freely asserted are freely denied, dumbass.
>
> > > It is
> > > your position that is terrorist. I remind you that I haven't killed
> > > anyone since I gave up the belief in "government," which I couldn't
> > > claim back in the days when I did believe in it.
> > Are you on a guilt trip, little boy malloy? I have never killed any
> > one.
>
> I have, and it was only when I believed in "government" as you do.
> And I suspect that you have never been ordered to kill anyone. It's
> easy to be an armchair authoritarian, isn't it.
You mean a wannabe anarchist.
Looking at yourself in the mirror, eh? LOL.
> I'm sure if your
> Grand High Exalted Mystic Rulers in Washington DC ordered you to shove
> Jews into ovens you'd be very sad, as you explained to your victims
> that might makes right, but that you're trying to get the law changed.
>
Do you have moral issues, little boy malloy?
> > > > > No. When everyone agrees with you, your subjective observation
> > > > > becomes axiomatic (whatever that means). Whether it is right or not
> > > > > is a matter of individual judgment.
> > > > Sheesh, when "everyone agrees", that sure is a lot of might. You sure
> > > > are dense, dumbass.
> > > When everyone agrees with you, you might have a point. Let me know
> > > when that happens - just try to avoid holding your breath
> > > waiting . . .
> >
> > Most people . . .
>
> . . .aren't everyone.
>
> > . . .around here think life, liberty and the pursuit of
> > happiness are self-evident truths.
> > We went to war over it.
>
> No you didn't. You just asserted you never killed anyone.
>
And you just asserted you quit killing, liar.
>
> > > > > > > Which "god"?
> > > > > > There can only be one God, i.e, Supreme Being. If there were any more
> > > > > > than one, He wouldn't be Supreme, eh?
> > > > > You don''t know which one. Okay . . .
> > > > > <shrug>
> > > > > --Jackney Sneeb
> > > > There can only be one God.
> > > Which one are you talking about? Jove? Zeus? Zarathustra? Zoul?
> > > Allah? Brahma? Gaia? Toyo-Uke-Bime? Si-Wang-Mu? Rama? Jesus?
> > > Orgelmir? Parvati? Thor? Mummu? Ishtar? Of all the gods you have to
> > > choose from, please specify the one true god you are talking about,
> > > and provide a brief description, please.
> > All of which you list are ways to get right with the only God that
> > exists.
> > The only sure way to do that is through Jesus Christ.
>
> I thought so - the dead Jew on a stick again . . .Now explain why you
> don't believe in all the other gods, and you'll know why I don't
> believe in yours.
>
I don't give a shit what you believe, little boy malloy. I am just
here pointing out how what a psuedo intellect you really are.
> > > > God is running the show for sure, but He also gave us free will.
> > > God is running things, and also he lets you run things, too. How can
> > > he be all powerful if he lets YOU decide stuff on your own?
> > > --Jackney Sneeb
> > We all have the free will to jump off a cliff; but, that ain't going
> > to keep anyone from smashing his brains.
>
> You also have the free will to molest kids, rape women, hang
> minorites, beat up homosexuals, and shove Jews into ovens.
>
So?
> When your
> politicians order you to do things like that,
They don't, liar.
> YOU believe might makes
> right,
All the evidence leads to that conclusion.
>and as long as you can get away with it - it IS right, and
> screw what God thinks!
>
God can certainly take care of Himself. He is omnipotent. Now that's
might and He is always right.
I am not so presumptuous as to think I speak for God.
> > Just because we have free will, that doesn't take away any of God's
> > power.
>
> What power?
For God to be God, He is omnipotent.
>You said if Hitler had maintained power HE would be
> right today!
True.
> You said whatever your beloved "authority" can get away
> with determines "right."
No, dumbass, I said whatever is right, it takes might to make it so.
So quit your lying (I know- that's impossible).
> Where does your god fit into that equation?
> --Jackney Sneeb
God is omnipotent; therefore, God is always right.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> Yep, you are not as smart as a 5th grader.
Another ad hominem instead of a coherent response . . .
> > > > The Mafia provides concrete for roads in parts of the country. You
> > > > therefore agreed to obey the commands of the Mafia? Wrong answer.
> > > Wrong question, dumbass.
> > > Since when does a vendor make the rules?- NEVER.
> > Anyone at all can make rules.
> Rules don't mean squat unless they can be enforced, dumbass.
Try breaking into my home at 3AM (violating my rule) and see what
happens.
> > You can't make a retort without including a
> > nasty insult.
> Tit for tat, dumbass.
All you prove by repetetive name-calling is that you haven't got a
coherent argument for your beliefs.
> > States aren't "the people."
> They are in this country, dumbass.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
And more silly name-calling.
> Tit for tat, dumbass.
More childish name-calling.
> Words have meanings. You're a nihilist.
More childish name-calling.
> > Because they make money the old fashioned way - they STEAL it. And
> > most politicians know the old adage "You can shear a sheep many times,
> > but you can only skin him once."
> Taxation ain't theft no matter how long you hold your breath, little
> boy malloy.
Guod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
More childish name-calling.
> > > > > And, since the People have the right to keep and bear arms, thus the
> > > > > People maintain ultimate authority, your contention is beyond absurd.
> > > > Are you recommending armed revolt?
> > > Why would I do that?
> > How can "the people" be the ultimate "authority" if you don't want
> > them to use their guns?
> Responsible people know when to use them. Hint: not for fun.
Refusal to answer the question noted.
> > > However, inherent in the 2nd Amendment is the right to revolt if need
> > > be.
> > Where? How can the constitution recognize a RIGHT to revolt, and also
> > prescribe congress the power to suppress insurrection? That's just
> > one of the contradictions in your blind faith in a piece of paper to
> > grant you your "rights" (whatever they are).
> Take a class and learn the meaning of paradox, little boy malloy.
Absence of substantive response noted.
More childish name-calling.
> > > But take heed, you had better have the might. See, for example, the
> > > Confederate States.
> > You say people have the right to revolt, yet you applaud the tyrants
> > who stomped on their right?
> Liar.
More childish name-calling.
> > Oh yeah - I remember - you believe might
> > makes right! So much for god granting you your rights, like it says
> > in the Declaration of Independence, huh!
> I am not so presumptuous to claim God grants me anything. I am happy
> to be alive and have the chance to learn.
Okay, so you don't believe in the Declaration of Independence. Me
neither. We agree on something.
<shrug>
> > > > > > That's tyranny.
> > > > > Tyranny is unilateral and despotic.
> > > > That's right, that's the United States.
> > > Liar, the United States is a representative govt.
> > Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
> Some words are self-explanatory.
Absence of substantive response noted.
> > > > Me: "The law is a unilateral command backed by force;"
> > > > You: "A unilateral command is tyranny."
> > > > Me: " The law is tyranny." Q.E.D.
> > > And I said THE LAW IS NOT A UNILATERAL COMMAND.
> > Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
> Back at you, dumbass.
More name-calling.
> > > > "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us" is pretty much
> > > > unilateral.
> > > It is not when you have representative govt, dumbass.
> > "Representative government" is a myth. Pure propaganda to keep you
> > compliant and subservient.
> Oh, yeah, you must be a conspiracy geek.
More silly name-calling.
> In the land of free expression, you'd really have to be dense to
> believe some of the nonsense you post.
Yet another ad hominem in place of a substantive response.
> > > > > > > That's why TJ was all for revolution.
> > > > > > Is that why the constitution says congress shall have power to
> > > > > > suppress insurrections?
> > > > > No, the power to suppress insurrections was to control lunatics like
> > > > > you from turning into terrorists.
> > > > I'm for less violence, specifically a lot less institutionalized
> > > > violence on the part of the state.
> > > Tell that to someone like the Sudanese.
> > Are you talking about "Honest" Bill's bombing of an aspirin factory in
> > Sudan to distract from his impeachment hearings? You just PROVED my
> > point.
> No, I am talking about the genocide going on there. Don't you keep up
> with the news?
Absence of substantive response noted.
> > > >You support that violence.
> > > LIar.
> > <shrug> Name-calling doesn't refute my assertion.
> Things freely asserted are freely denied, dumbass.
More vapid name-calling instead of a real response.
> > > > It is
> > > > your position that is terrorist. I remind you that I haven't killed
> > > > anyone since I gave up the belief in "government," which I couldn't
> > > > claim back in the days when I did believe in it.
> > > Are you on a guilt trip, little boy malloy? I have never killed any
> > > one.
> > I have, and it was only when I believed in "government" as you do.
> > And I suspect that you have never been ordered to kill anyone. It's
> > easy to be an armchair authoritarian, isn't it.
> You mean a wannabe anarchist.
> Looking at yourself in the mirror, eh? LOL.
More name-calling instead of a relevant response.
> > I'm sure if your
> > Grand High Exalted Mystic Rulers in Washington DC ordered you to shove
> > Jews into ovens you'd be very sad, as you explained to your victims
> > that might makes right, but that you're trying to get the law changed.
> Do you have moral issues, little boy malloy?
Yet one more ad hominem instead of a real response to the issue.
> > > > When everyone agrees with you, you might have a point. Let me know
> > > > when that happens - just try to avoid holding your breath
> > > > waiting . . .
> > > Most people . . .
> > . . .aren't everyone.
> > > . . .around here think life, liberty and the pursuit of
> > > happiness are self-evident truths.
> > > We went to war over it.
> > No you didn't. You just asserted you never killed anyone.
> And you just asserted you quit killing, liar.
I did, and you just committed yet another ad hominem.
> > > > > > > > Which "god"?
> > > > > > > There can only be one God, i.e, Supreme Being. If there were any more
> > > > > > > than one, He wouldn't be Supreme, eh?
> > > > > > You don''t know which one. Okay . . .
> > > > > > <shrug>
> > > > > > --Jackney Sneeb
> I don't give a shit what you believe, little boy malloy. I am just
> here pointing out how what a psuedo intellect you really are.
Another vapid ad hominem instead of a response to the issue at hand.
> > > > > God is running the show for sure, but He also gave us free will.
> > > > God is running things, and also he lets you run things, too. How can
> > > > he be all powerful if he lets YOU decide stuff on your own?
> > > > --Jackney Sneeb
> > > We all have the free will to jump off a cliff; but, that ain't going
> > > to keep anyone from smashing his brains.
> > You also have the free will to molest kids, rape women, hang
> > minorites, beat up homosexuals, and shove Jews into ovens.
> So?
So how is your god "all powerful" if he lets you get away with things
like that?
> > When your
> > politicians order you to do things like that,
> They don't, liar.
Another ad hominem and - denial of reality - noted.
> > YOU believe might makes
> > right,
> All the evidence leads to that conclusion.
And that conclusion craps all over the belief that god makes the final
judgment of right and wrong.
> >and as long as you can get away with it - it IS right, and
> > screw what God thinks!
> God can certainly take care of Himself. He is omnipotent. Now that's
> might and He is always right.
> I am not so presumptuous as to think I speak for God.
Another contradictory statement noted.
> > > Just because we have free will, that doesn't take away any of God's
> > > power.
> > What power?
> For God to be God, He is omnipotent.
God is a myth.
> >You said if Hitler had maintained power HE would be
> > right today!
> True.
Another contradiction of the belief in an omnipotent god noted.
> > You said whatever your beloved "authority" can get away
> > with determines "right."
> No, dumbass, I said whatever is right, it takes might to make it so.
> So quit your lying (I know- that's impossible).
"If Hitler would have remained in power, killing Jews
would have been right." ~ed senter, 07/05/2008
That's what you said, ed - that means whatever your beloved
"authority" can get away with determines "right."
> > Where does your god fit into that equation?
> God is omnipotent; therefore, God is always right.
I thought your believed whoever had the most guns, tanks, and atom
bombs and the will to use them determined right?
BTW, god is a myth . . .
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 27, 10:22 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Yep, you are not as smart as a 5th grader.
> > Rules don't mean squat unless they can be enforced, dumbass.
>
> Try breaking into my home at 3AM (violating my rule) and see what
> happens.
>
So?
> > > You can't make a retort without including a
> > > nasty insult.
> > Tit for tat, dumbass.
>
> All you prove by repetetive name-calling is that you haven't got a
> coherent argument for your beliefs.
>
You can't argue a point without twisting the meanings to fit your
argument.
> > > > > > And, since the People have the right to keep and bear arms, thus the
> > > > > > People maintain ultimate authority, your contention is beyond absurd.
> > > > > Are you recommending armed revolt?
> > > > Why would I do that?
> > > How can "the people" be the ultimate "authority" if you don't want
> > > them to use their guns?
> > Responsible people know when to use them. Hint: not for fun.
>
> Refusal to answer the question noted.
>
Lack of cogent questions noted.
Just because someone has a gun he is supposed to use it?
> > > > However, inherent in the 2nd Amendment is the right to revolt if need
> > > > be.
> > > Where? How can the constitution recognize a RIGHT to revolt, and also
> > > prescribe congress the power to suppress insurrection? That's just
> > > one of the contradictions in your blind faith in a piece of paper to
> > > grant you your "rights" (whatever they are).
> > Take a class and learn the meaning of paradox, little boy malloy.
>
> Absence of substantive response noted.
Both statements are true. They are not contradictory.
>
> > > > But take heed, you had better have the might. See, for example, the
> > > > Confederate States.
> > > You say people have the right to revolt, yet you applaud the tyrants
> > > who stomped on their right?
> > Liar.
>
> More childish name-calling.
>
You lied, dumbass. That is not name-calling.
> > > Oh yeah - I remember - you believe might
> > > makes right! So much for god granting you your rights, like it says
> > > in the Declaration of Independence, huh!
> > I am not so presumptuous to claim God grants me anything. I am happy
> > to be alive and have the chance to learn.
>
> Okay, so you don't believe in the Declaration of Independence. Me
> neither. We agree on something.
> <shrug>
>
You lie again.
You don't accept the principle that all men are created equal with
certain unalienable rights as a self-evident truth?
>
> > > > > > God is running the show for sure, but He also gave us free will.
> > > > > God is running things, and also he lets you run things, too. How can
> > > > > he be all powerful if he lets YOU decide stuff on your own?
> > > > > --Jackney Sneeb
> > > > We all have the free will to jump off a cliff; but, that ain't going
> > > > to keep anyone from smashing his brains.
> > > You also have the free will to molest kids, rape women, hang
> > > minorites, beat up homosexuals, and shove Jews into ovens.
> > So?
>
> So how is your god "all powerful" if he lets you get away with things
> like that?
>
It's called free will.
> > > When your
> > > politicians order you to do things like that,
> > They don't, liar.
>
> Another ad hominem and - denial of reality - noted.
>
Prove it.
> > > YOU believe might makes
> > > right,
> > All the evidence leads to that conclusion.
>
> And that conclusion craps all over the belief that god makes the final
> judgment of right and wrong.
>
How so?
God determines absolute right and wrong because He is omnipotent.
If you deny the existense of God, then you deny the existense of
absolute right and wrong.
Regardless, God gave us free will. That doesn't change the fact that
God is omnipotent.
> > >and as long as you can get away with it - it IS right, and
> > > screw what God thinks!
> > God can certainly take care of Himself. He is omnipotent. Now that's
> > might and He is always right.
> > I am not so presumptuous as to think I speak for God.
>
> Another contradictory statement noted.
>
How so?
> > > > Just because we have free will, that doesn't take away any of God's
> > > > power.
> > > What power?
> > For God to be God, He is omnipotent.
>
> God is a myth.
>
Denial ain't argument.
You can't prove God is a myth. Regardless, if God exists, omnipotence
is what makes God the Supreme Being.
> > >You said if Hitler had maintained power HE would be
> > > right today!
> > True.
>
> Another contradiction of the belief in an omnipotent god noted.
>
How do you know?
God gave us free will, therefore, shit happens.
> > > You said whatever your beloved "authority" can get away
> > > with determines "right."
> > No, dumbass, I said whatever is right, it takes might to make it so.
> > So quit your lying (I know- that's impossible).
>
> "If Hitler would have remained in power, killing Jews
> would have been right." ~ed senter, 07/05/2008
> That's what you said, ed - that means whatever your beloved
> "authority" can get away with determines "right."
>
No, liar, it means whatever is right, it takes might to make it so.
As a side note, the entire argument about right and wrong is pretty
silly without some kind of absolute standard.
If God is a myth, who cares what is right or wrong.
> > > Where does your god fit into that equation?
> > God is omnipotent; therefore, God is always right.
>
> I thought your believed whoever had the most guns, tanks, and atom
> bombs and the will to use them determined right?
>
I said whatever is right, it takes power to make it so.
God spoke, and not a thing became everything.
> BTW, god is a myth . . .
> --Jackney Sneeb
Denial ain't argument.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> > > Yep, you are not as smart as a 5th grader.
> > > Rules don't mean squat unless they can be enforced, dumbass.
> > Try breaking into my home at 3AM (violating my rule) and see what
> > happens.
> So?
Q.E.D.
> God determines absolute right and wrong because He is omnipotent.
So now you are changing your story to there actually is an absolute
right and wrong?
> If you deny the existense of God, then you deny the existense of
> absolute right and wrong.
Whatever the truth about right and wrong - be it absolute, or purely
subjective - humans are left with no other option than to figure it
out using our own individual judgment. It's inevitable. The question
of god has nothing to do with it. The issue of god's existence/non
existence is irrelevant to that fact.
> Regardless, God gave us free will. That doesn't change the fact that
> God is omnipotent.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
> You can't prove God is a myth.
Actually, I can. All gods are imaginary deities. All imaginary
deities are based on myths. And the Jesus one is notoriously well-
known to have been borrowed from other pagan myths.
> > > > You said whatever your beloved "authority" can get away
> > > > with determines "right."
> > > No, dumbass, I said whatever is right, it takes might to make it so.
> > > So quit your lying (I know- that's impossible).
> > "If Hitler would have remained in power, killing Jews
> > would have been right." ~ed senter, 07/05/2008
> > That's what you said, ed - that means whatever your beloved
> > "authority" can get away with determines "right."
> No, liar, it means whatever is right, it takes might to make it so.
"If Hitler would have remained in power, killing Jews
would have been right." ~ed senter, 07/05/2008
Q.E.D.
> As a side note, the entire argument about right and wrong is pretty
> silly without some kind of absolute standard.
There is no absolute standard. Yet you have no problem arguing about
right and wrong.
> If God is a myth, who cares what is right or wrong.
Each individual human being cares about right and wrong to varying
degrees, because it is in our nature to want to resolve contradictions
- two contradictory concepts cause cognitive dissonance; cognitive
dissonance is intellectually uncomfortable; a human being resolves
this by choosing one of them as "right" and marking the other as
"wrong." He may use logic, or he may use superstition. Superstition
is the lazy man's way. It says, "Don't bother thinking too hard -
just rely on what someone else told you, and if you don't know, you
can always blame it on god."
> > > > Where does your god fit into that equation?
> > > God is omnipotent; therefore, God is always right.
> > I thought your believed whoever had the most guns, tanks, and atom
> > bombs and the will to use them determined right?
> I said whatever is right, it takes power to make it so.
You said might MAKES right:
"Logic says, 'These are the mighty, therefore they make right'." ~ed
senter, Nov 11 2007, 1:08 pm
> God spoke, and not a thing became everything.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 28, 12:21 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> > God determines absolute right and wrong because He is omnipotent.
>
> So now you are changing your story to there actually is an absolute
> right and wrong?
>
No, my story has always been that there is no objective right and
wrong.
> > If you deny the existense of God, then you deny the existense of
> > absolute right and wrong.
>
> Whatever the truth about right and wrong - be it absolute, or purely
> subjective - humans are left with no other option than to figure it
> out using our own individual judgment.
Right and wrong is purely subjective; and, it really doesn't matter
unless it is absolute.
> It's inevitable.
What's inevitable is that right and wrong are meaningless without some
standard apart from yourself.
Otherwise, you are just stroking your ego (which is what you have been
doing all along, little boy malloy).
> The question
> of god has nothing to do with it. The issue of god's existence/non
> existence is irrelevant to that fact.
>
Well, I prefer not to just stroke my ego.
> > Regardless, God gave us free will. That doesn't change the fact that
> > God is omnipotent.
>
> Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
>
Hey, you are the one trying to prove some contradiction.
You can't handle the truth, eh?
>
> > You can't prove God is a myth.
>
> Actually, I can.
Ok, let's see it.
> All gods are imaginary deities. All imaginary
> deities are based on myths.
What? Did you pull that out of your ass?
Denial ain't argument.
> And the Jesus one is notoriously well-
> known to have been borrowed from other pagan myths.
>
Maybe the pagan myths are caricatures of the truth and Jesus really
was who he said he was.
> > > > > You said whatever your beloved "authority" can get away
> > > > > with determines "right."
> > > > No, dumbass, I said whatever is right, it takes might to make it so.
> > > > So quit your lying (I know- that's impossible).
> > > "If Hitler would have remained in power, killing Jews
> > > would have been right." ~ed senter, 07/05/2008
> > > That's what you said, ed - that means whatever your beloved
> > > "authority" can get away with determines "right."
> > No, liar, it means whatever is right, it takes might to make it so.
>
> "If Hitler would have remained in power, killing Jews
> would have been right." ~ed senter, 07/05/2008
> Q.E.D.
Hitler didn't get away with it. Don't you read history? Or, maybe
your position is that since you did not personally experience it, it
was a myth?
>
> > As a side note, the entire argument about right and wrong is pretty
> > silly without some kind of absolute standard.
>
> There is no absolute standard. Yet you have no problem arguing about
> right and wrong.
>
Have you been listening?
God is the absolute standard because He is omnipotent.
> > If God is a myth, who cares what is right or wrong.
>
> Each individual human being cares about right and wrong to varying
> degrees, because it is in our nature to want to resolve contradictions
Our nature is to stroke the ego.
You only wish you could identify contradictions. You fail miserabley.
> - two contradictory concepts cause cognitive dissonance; cognitive
> dissonance is intellectually uncomfortable;
LMAO
Most people are perfectly happy living in delusions.
>a human being resolves
> this by choosing one of them as "right" and marking the other as
> "wrong."
Right and wrong are usually moral precepts. And they only come into
play when you are dealing with other people.
>He may use logic, or he may use superstition. Superstition
> is the lazy man's way.
Oh, that's right. You use "logic" to hash out moral dilemmas.
Let me know when you think you have discovered a contradiction that
conflicts with YOUR "objective reality".
> It says, "Don't bother thinking too hard -
> just rely on what someone else told you, and if you don't know, you
> can always blame it on god."
>
I don't think those who seek transcendental answers to moral dilemmas
"blame" God.
I think the problem arises when some presume to speak for God, or
worse, stroke their ego.
> > > > > Where does your god fit into that equation?
> > > > God is omnipotent; therefore, God is always right.
> > > I thought your believed whoever had the most guns, tanks, and atom
> > > bombs and the will to use them determined right?
> > I said whatever is right, it takes power to make it so.
>
> You said might MAKES right:
> "Logic says, 'These are the mighty, therefore they make right'." ~ed
> senter, Nov 11 2007, 1:08 pm
>
That means WHATEVER IS RIGHT, IT TAKES POWER TO MAKE IT SO.
Sheesh.
> > God spoke, and not a thing became everything.
>
> Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
> --Jackney Sneeb
Well, He couldn't do that unless He was omnipotent.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> No, my story has always been that there is no objective right and
> wrong.
And also that god makes right and wrong.
> > > If you deny the existense of God, then you deny the existense of
> > > absolute right and wrong.
> > Whatever the truth about right and wrong - be it absolute, or purely
> > subjective - humans are left with no other option than to figure it
> > out using our own individual judgment.
> Right and wrong is purely subjective; and, it really doesn't matter
> unless it is absolute.
You agree, then (sort of). So whose judgment do you use to determine
right and wrong again? You said your own a few times . . .do you
still say that? And if so, whose judgment does everyone else on the
planet use to determine right and wrong? Their own? And how is that
different from anarchy?
> > It's inevitable.
> What's inevitable is that right and wrong are meaningless without some
> standard apart from yourself.
And whose judgment then do YOU use (apart from your own) to set the
standard of right and wrong again? Are you going to contradict
yourself again, or are you going to admit that you are left with your
own judgment to determine right from wrong, and any external (apart
from you) standard you choose will necessarily be dependent, again, on
your own judgment?
It sounds like this: "I can't prove there's an absolute standard of
right and wrong. Jackney Sneeb says that all I can rely on is my own
judgment. But that means everyone else is doing the same thing. What
if we all don't agree on what right and wrong are? That would be
anarchy! We can't have that! So, I guess I have to find me an
absolute standard of right and wrong somewhere, so everyone will agree
and we won't have anarchy! But gee - here comes mean ol' Jackney
again telling me everyone else uses their own judgment to decide what
that absolute standard is, too. Hmmm, we're back to anarchy again. I
know - I'll invent a god to make everyone obey the same standard of
right and wrong, and if Jackney rejects that god I'll call him a liar,
and other nasty things! That will surely prove I'm right!"
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 28, 10:49 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > No, my story has always been that there is no objective right and
> > wrong.
>
> And also that god makes right and wrong.
>
Well, that's subjective. God is always right. He is omnipotent.
> > > > If you deny the existense of God, then you deny the existense of
> > > > absolute right and wrong.
> > > Whatever the truth about right and wrong - be it absolute, or purely
> > > subjective - humans are left with no other option than to figure it
> > > out using our own individual judgment.
> > Right and wrong is purely subjective; and, it really doesn't matter
> > unless it is absolute.
>
> You agree, then (sort of). So whose judgment do you use to determine
> right and wrong again? You said your own a few times . . .do you
> still say that? And if so, whose judgment does everyone else on the
> planet use to determine right and wrong? Their own? And how is that
> different from anarchy?
>
That's the definition of anarchy- everyone doing their own thing and
stroking their ego.
The result is chaos.
> > > It's inevitable.
> > What's inevitable is that right and wrong are meaningless without some
> > standard apart from yourself.
>
> And whose judgment then do YOU use (apart from your own) to set the
> standard of right and wrong again? Are you going to contradict
> yourself again, or are you going to admit that you are left with your
> own judgment to determine right from wrong, and any external (apart
> from you) standard you choose will necessarily be dependent, again, on
> your own judgment?
>
You are the one with the contradicition. You can not determine right
and wrong AND determine the standard of right and wrong apart from
yourself.
> It sounds like this: "I can't prove there's an absolute standard of
> right and wrong.
Only God can set an absolute standard of right and wrong.
> Jackney Sneeb says that all I can rely on is my own
> judgment. But that means everyone else is doing the same thing. What
> if we all don't agree on what right and wrong are? That would be
> anarchy! We can't have that!
Its not that "we can't have that", numbnut. Anarchy results in chaos
which means life ain't no fun.
>So, I guess I have to find me an
> absolute standard of right and wrong somewhere, so everyone will agree
> and we won't have anarchy!
That's the real problem. Everyone trying to play God.
>But gee - here comes mean ol' Jackney
> again telling me everyone else uses their own judgment to decide what
> that absolute standard is, too. Hmmm, we're back to anarchy again.
No, when people play God, the result is not anarchy but tyranny.
> I
> know - I'll invent a god to make everyone obey the same standard of
> right and wrong, and if Jackney rejects that god I'll call him a liar,
> and other nasty things! That will surely prove I'm right!"
>
No, numbnut, we do what the American experience has taught us. No one
plays God. Each individual can work out his own "absolute" standard
between himself and God.
In the mean time and as far as society goes, we are going to
compromise and set a standard which recognizes all men are fallible
and no man speaks for God. We call that law.
P. Maffia
"Bob" <bo...@soc.eert.edu> wrote in message
news:ag76945jslpu14bmh...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:52:52 -0700 (PDT), nat <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> \
> \
> \
> \No, numbnut,
>
> As one Christian to another, you need to work on emulating the Savior.
> Jesus would not (as is seen by recorded behavior) use such language...
>
> Also if you study when the Israelites first requested a "king" (meaning a
> form of man's "government") He became very angry. This would be because
> the greatest evil in the universe is the mistaken cult belief in
> "government". The greatest evils in the world throughout history have
> only
> been possible because of the cult followers of "government". Ask yourself
> why this cult requires that you fly their flag above any other including
> the "Christian flag"?? If God is above this earthly "government" then
> wouldn't the cult believers in "government" require that you fly your
> "God"
> flag above your US "cult" flag??
>
> I guess these cult believers believe that their "government" cult is above
> any Creator that you aknowledge...
>
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Bob" <bo...@soc.eert.edu> wrote
> nat <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> \No, numbnut,
>
> As one Christian to another, you need to work on emulating the Savior.
> Jesus would not (as is seen by recorded behavior) use such language...
I'm pretty sure you can't find any record of "numbnut" being used in that
era. But I am sure that Jesus would put you in your place using more
elloquent words.
--
"Under certain circumstances profanity
provides a relief denied by prayer"
Mark Twain
---------------------------------------------
nat
Bob wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:52:52 -0700 (PDT), nat <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> \
> \
> \
> \No, numbnut,
>
> As one Christian to another, you need to work on emulating the Savior.
You, sir, have fallen for the lies of satan.
No where am I to emulate the Savior. I could be crucified and it
wouldn't save a fly.
Emulation is blasphemous.
> Jesus would not (as is seen by recorded behavior) use such language...
>
How do you know?
> Also if you study when the Israelites first requested a "king" (meaning a
> form of man's "government") He became very angry.
Yeah, the Old Testament is pretty much a record of man's screwups, and
how God intends to deal with it.
> This would be because
> the greatest evil in the universe is the mistaken cult belief in
> "government".
No, Israel was and is God's oracle.
The greatest evil in the universe is the great lie of satan- the
belief that you can know good and evil and be as God.
> The greatest evils in the world throughout history have only
> been possible because of the cult followers of "government".
Not at all. There is evil in the world because God gave us free will.
The fact that men gang up on other men just proves free will man's
capacity for evil.
> Ask yourself
> why this cult requires that you fly their flag above any other including
> the "Christian flag"??
I wasn't aware there was a "Christian flag". little boy malloy would
call that idolatry.
> If God is above this earthly "government" then
> wouldn't the cult believers in "government" require that you fly your "God"
> flag above your US "cult" flag??
>
I don't know why you have gotten off on this "flag" business.
The American experience calls for a separation of church and state.
Let your conscience be guided by YOUR relationship with God; however,
to impose what YOU believe God wants for YOU on others, is nothing
short of tyranny.
> I guess these cult believers believe that their "government" cult is above
> any Creator that you aknowledge...
I think you are a tyrant wannabe.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> > > No, my story has always been that there is no objective right and
> > > wrong.
> > And also that god makes right and wrong.
> Well, that's subjective. God is always right. He is omnipotent.
Does god ever change his mind about right and wrong? If so, then
right and wrong aren't objective. If not, then there is an objective
standard of right and wrong, after all. Whose judgment does each
person have to use to determine what that standard is? Following your
answer, how is that different from anarchy?
> > You agree, then (sort of). So whose judgment do you use to determine
> > right and wrong again? You said your own a few times . . .do you
> > still say that? And if so, whose judgment does everyone else on the
> > planet use to determine right and wrong? Their own? And how is that
> > different from anarchy?
> That's the definition of anarchy- everyone doing their own thing and
> stroking their ego.
Everyone does his own thing. Ergo: anarchy. (Stroking your ego is
optional.)
> The result is chaos.
There is an element of chaos in anarchy; there is also order, to a
degree. You only see the chaos. It frightens you, so you concoct
imaginary deities and "governments" in your mind to make anarchy go
away. It can't work. Six billion individuals each dreaming up his own
version of god/"government" is still anarchy.
> > And whose judgment then do YOU use (apart from your own) to set the
> > standard of right and wrong again? Are you going to contradict
> > yourself again, or are you going to admit that you are left with your
> > own judgment to determine right from wrong, and any external (apart
> > from you) standard you choose will necessarily be dependent, again, on
> > your own judgment?
> You are the one with the contradicition. You can not determine right
> and wrong AND determine the standard of right and wrong apart from
> yourself.
No contradiction - Everyone DOES determine right and wrong for
himself; and I never said there was a standard apart from myself. I
said that whatever the truth about right and wrong, each individual is
left with no option other than to use his own judgment to determine
what that truth is. You agreed with me that only you can decide right
and wrong for you:
"Only I can decide what's right or wrong for me."
--ed senter, 01-24-2002
Assuming you admit that everyone else must determine right and wrong
for himself, as well, how is the result different from anarchy?
> > It sounds like this: "I can't prove there's an absolute standard of
> > right and wrong.
> Only God can set an absolute standard of right and wrong.
I thought you said there is no standard of right and wrong.
> > Jackney Sneeb says that all I can rely on is my own
> > judgment. But that means everyone else is doing the same thing. What
> > if we all don't agree on what right and wrong are? That would be
> > anarchy! We can't have that!
> Its not that "we can't have that", numbnut. Anarchy results in chaos
> which means life ain't no fun.
It's your opinion that anarchy only contains chaos. 'Life ain't no
fun' is no excuse to invent an imaginary higher power to make life fun
for you. In anarchy, only YOU can make life fun or not.
> >So, I guess I have to find me an
> > absolute standard of right and wrong somewhere, so everyone will agree
> > and we won't have anarchy!
> That's the real problem. Everyone trying to play God.
And the other problem is you (and other state-worshippers) putting
those people in power and demanding they play god over you (and the
rest of us).
> >But gee - here comes mean ol' Jackney
> > again telling me everyone else uses their own judgment to decide what
> > that absolute standard is, too. Hmmm, we're back to anarchy again.
> No, when people play God, the result is not anarchy but tyranny.
Tell that to your god-complex politicians. (And it's still anarchy.
Would it be tyranny if "government" existed?)
> > I
> > know - I'll invent a god to make everyone obey the same standard of
> > right and wrong, and if Jackney rejects that god I'll call him a liar,
> > and other nasty things! That will surely prove I'm right!"
> No, numbnut, we do what the American experience has taught us. No one
> plays God.
Politicians making "laws" (that they themselves pay no attention to)
for us ordinary mortals sounds like playing god to me.
> Each individual can work out his own "absolute" standard
> between himself and God.
You still haven't identified this "god" you keep referring to. I
think you secretly know it's a myth.
> In the mean time and as far as society goes, we are going to
> compromise and set a standard which recognizes all men are fallible
> and no man speaks for God. We call that law.
We call that a blatant contradiction. "a) No man speaks for god, b)
all men are fallible, therefore c) some fallible men should make rules
for the rest of us."
'a' and 'c' contradict one another.
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 29, 1:52 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > > No, my story has always been that there is no objective right and
> > > > wrong.
> > > And also that god makes right and wrong.
> > Well, that's subjective. God is always right. He is omnipotent.
>
> Does god ever change his mind about right and wrong?
God does not "change" HIs mind in the same sense that man might change
his mind.
God is omnipotent; therefore, whatever God says is always right.
> If so, then
> right and wrong aren't objective. If not, then there is an objective
> standard of right and wrong, after all.
Only God can set an absolute standard of right and wrong. That by
definition is subjective.
All man can do is give his opinion about any absolute standard, and
that itself is subjective.
Therefore, there is no objective standard of right and wrong.
> Whose judgment does each
> person have to use to determine what that standard is? Following your
> answer, how is that different from anarchy?
>
What I don't get is your immutable belief that people can't get
together and compromise on some standard law or rule by which they
will govern their conduct within society.
That by definition is government- the opposite of anarchy.
> > > You agree, then (sort of). So whose judgment do you use to determine
> > > right and wrong again? You said your own a few times . . .do you
> > > still say that? And if so, whose judgment does everyone else on the
> > > planet use to determine right and wrong? Their own? And how is that
> > > different from anarchy?
> > That's the definition of anarchy- everyone doing their own thing and
> > stroking their ego.
>
> Everyone does his own thing. Ergo: anarchy. (Stroking your ego is
> optional.)
>
Why is govt instituted at all?- Because the passions of men will not
conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.
> > The result is chaos.
>
> There is an element of chaos in anarchy; there is also order, to a
> degree.
boy, you're a walking talking contradiction. Anarchy is a utopian
pipe dream. People do not get along.
> You only see the chaos.
Because any order would be govt, sheesh.
> It frightens you, so you concoct
> imaginary deities and "governments" in your mind to make anarchy go
> away. It can't work. Six billion individuals each dreaming up his own
> version of god/"government" is still anarchy.
The only way to "make anarchy go away" is to concoct rules.
There are only a few hundred govts on this planet; some better than
others.
The only fantasy is your insistence that "it can't work".
>
> > > And whose judgment then do YOU use (apart from your own) to set the
> > > standard of right and wrong again? Are you going to contradict
> > > yourself again, or are you going to admit that you are left with your
> > > own judgment to determine right from wrong, and any external (apart
> > > from you) standard you choose will necessarily be dependent, again, on
> > > your own judgment?
> > You are the one with the contradicition. You can not determine right
> > and wrong AND determine the standard of right and wrong apart from
> > yourself.
>
> No contradiction - Everyone DOES determine right and wrong for
> himself; and I never said there was a standard apart from myself. I
> said that whatever the truth about right and wrong, each individual is
> left with no option other than to use his own judgment to determine
> what that truth is.
All you have done is refuse to call that "truth" God.
I say that if there is any truth, then that would be God.
>You agreed with me that only you can decide right
> and wrong for you:
>
> "Only I can decide what's right or wrong for me."
> --ed senter, 01-24-2002
>
I still say that. That does not mean I have surrendered my judgment
when I compromise upon the rules of society, nor that it is anarchy
since every one still uses his own judgment.
> Assuming you admit that everyone else must determine right and wrong
> for himself, as well, how is the result different from anarchy?
>
The problem is your definition. You have defined 'anarchy' to mean
"everybody using there own judgment".
Anarchy means the absence of govt or rules.
People are going to get together and form govts in spite of your
fantasies. The only choice is which style of govt.
> > > It sounds like this: "I can't prove there's an absolute standard of
> > > right and wrong.
> > Only God can set an absolute standard of right and wrong.
>
> I thought you said there is no standard of right and wrong.
>
I said there is no OBJECTIVE standard of right and wrong.
> > > Jackney Sneeb says that all I can rely on is my own
> > > judgment. But that means everyone else is doing the same thing. What
> > > if we all don't agree on what right and wrong are? That would be
> > > anarchy! We can't have that!
> > Its not that "we can't have that", numbnut. Anarchy results in chaos
> > which means life ain't no fun.
>
> It's your opinion that anarchy only contains chaos.
No, it is a scientific fact that people do not get along.
> 'Life ain't no
> fun' is no excuse to invent an imaginary higher power to make life fun
> for you.
I don't have to invent anything. All I have to do is devise the best
social contract.
> In anarchy, only YOU can make life fun or not.
>
In anarchy, it is a race to be the best tyrant.
> > >So, I guess I have to find me an
> > > absolute standard of right and wrong somewhere, so everyone will agree
> > > and we won't have anarchy!
> > That's the real problem. Everyone trying to play God.
>
> And the other problem is you (and other state-worshippers) putting
> those people in power and demanding they play god over you (and the
> rest of us).
>
Not at all- if we devise a scale with laissez-faire on one end and
statism on the other, I would prefer the end with the most freedom.
Your belief that all govt is statism or state-worship is just stupid.
> > >But gee - here comes mean ol' Jackney
> > > again telling me everyone else uses their own judgment to decide what
> > > that absolute standard is, too. Hmmm, we're back to anarchy again.
> > No, when people play God, the result is not anarchy but tyranny.
>
> Tell that to your god-complex politicians. (And it's still anarchy.
> Would it be tyranny if "government" existed?)
>
You still don't get the checks and balances, eh?
> > > I
> > > know - I'll invent a god to make everyone obey the same standard of
> > > right and wrong, and if Jackney rejects that god I'll call him a liar,
> > > and other nasty things! That will surely prove I'm right!"
> > No, numbnut, we do what the American experience has taught us. No one
> > plays God.
>
> Politicians making "laws" (that they themselves pay no attention to)
> for us ordinary mortals sounds like playing god to me.
>
You still don't get representative govt, eh?
> > Each individual can work out his own "absolute" standard
> > between himself and God.
>
> You still haven't identified this "god" you keep referring to. I
> think you secretly know it's a myth.
>
No, I have always said Jesus was who He said He was.
> > In the mean time and as far as society goes, we are going to
> > compromise and set a standard which recognizes all men are fallible
> > and no man speaks for God. We call that law.
>
> We call that a blatant contradiction. "a) No man speaks for god, b)
> all men are fallible, therefore c) some fallible men should make rules
> for the rest of us."
>
> 'a' and 'c' contradict one another.
> --Jackney Sneeb
Your moronic "logic" doesn't even make sense. Just because men make
rules for the rest of us does not mean they are speaking for god.
Nevertheless, in the American system, legislatures REPRESENT the
people. They do not speak for themselves much less god.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> JackneySn...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 1:52 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > No, my story has always been that there is no objective right and
> > > > > wrong.
> > > > And also that god makes right and wrong.
> > > Well, that's subjective. God is always right. He is omnipotent.
> > Does god ever change his mind about right and wrong?
> God does not "change" HIs mind in the same sense that man might change
> his mind.
> > right and wrong aren't objective. If not, then there is an objective
> > standard of right and wrong, after all.
> God is omnipotent; therefore, whatever God says is always right.
So god doesn't change right and wrong. Ergo, right and wrong must be
constant, and therefore objective.
> Only God can set an absolute standard of right and wrong. That by
> definition is subjective.
It's just the opposite. An absolute standard is what objective means.
> All man can do is give his opinion about any absolute standard, and
> that itself is subjective.
> Therefore, there is no objective standard of right and wrong.
So you agree there is no objective standard of right and wrong. So
how are six billion individuals, each one determining right and wrong
for himself subjectively, any different from anarchy?
> > Whose judgment does each
> > person have to use to determine what that standard is? Following your
> > answer, how is that different from anarchy?
> What I don't get is your immutable belief that people can't get
> together and compromise on some standard law or rule by which they
> will govern their conduct within society.
I don't know where you got the idea that I believe that. Any number
of people can get together and decide they will conform to a set of
rules for their behavior. what they cannot legitimately do is shove
those rules down people's throats who are NOT in agreement with, or a
part of, their little (or large) cult.
> That by definition is government- the opposite of anarchy.
No. You just defined religion. A group of people getting together
and deciding they will all obey a set of rules is religion.
"Government" would be the same thing, except that the group would have
the RIGHT (authority) to impose those rules on outsiders. Of course,
there is no right to impose your (or my) rules on those with whom we
disagree.
> > > > You agree, then (sort of). So whose judgment do you use to determine
> > > > right and wrong again? You said your own a few times . . .do you
> > > > still say that? And if so, whose judgment does everyone else on the
> > > > planet use to determine right and wrong? Their own? And how is that
> > > > different from anarchy?
> > > That's the definition of anarchy- everyone doing their own thing and
> > > stroking their ego.
> > Everyone does his own thing. Ergo: anarchy. (Stroking your ego is
> > optional.)
>
> Why is govt instituted at all?-
It's not. It's bullshit. The thing you call "government" is the
state, an illegitimate gang of lawyers and thugs operating a
protection racket based on extortion. I refuse to acknowledge that as
the definition of "government."
> Because the passions of men will not
> conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.
> > > The result is chaos.
> > There is an element of chaos in anarchy; there is also order, to a
> > degree.
> boy, you're a walking talking contradiction. Anarchy is a utopian
> pipe dream. People do not get along.
Would people get along if "government" existed? I think what you mean
is anarchISM is a pipe dream. AnarchY is provable reality.
> > You only see the chaos.
> Because any order would be govt, sheesh.
"Government" is not order. "Government" as you define it is force.
Force doesn't create order any more than sound creates music.
> > It frightens you, so you concoct
> > imaginary deities and "governments" in your mind to make anarchy go
> > away. It can't work. Six billion individuals each dreaming up his own
> > version of god/"government" is still anarchy.
> The only way to "make anarchy go away" is to concoct rules.
No. Any bonehead with a gun can make and enforce rules. That's
anarchy. To make anarchy "go away" would require an agency with the
exclusive RIGHT ("authority") to use force to make everyone conform to
its rules. There can never be any such right.
> There are only a few hundred govts on this planet; some better than
> others.
How are several hundred armed gangs competing for the world's
resources any different from anarchy?
> > > > And whose judgment then do YOU use (apart from your own) to set the
> > > > standard of right and wrong again? Are you going to contradict
> > > > yourself again, or are you going to admit that you are left with your
> > > > own judgment to determine right from wrong, and any external (apart
> > > > from you) standard you choose will necessarily be dependent, again, on
> > > > your own judgment?
> > > You are the one with the contradicition. You can not determine right
> > > and wrong AND determine the standard of right and wrong apart from
> > > yourself.
> > No contradiction - Everyone DOES determine right and wrong for
> > himself; and I never said there was a standard apart from myself. I
> > said that whatever the truth about right and wrong, each individual is
> > left with no option other than to use his own judgment to determine
> > what that truth is.
> All you have done is refuse to call that "truth" God.
<shrug> All you need to do to win the debate is provide a shred of
evidence for the existence of your sky fairy.
> I say that if there is any truth, then that would be God.
Bullshit.
> >You agreed with me that only you can decide right
> > and wrong for you:
>
> > "Only I can decide what's right or wrong for me."
> > --ed senter, 01-24-2002
>
> I still say that. That does not mean I have surrendered my judgment
> when I compromise upon the rules of society,
That's exactly what it means. Otherwise what's the point of having
rules at all? Incidentally, I'm still waiting for a answer as to how
you can claim to be obeying literally millions of "laws" you know
nothing about. Still, even if you could know them all, you would be a
twit to pledge obedience to them in all cases, even where they
conflict with your own judgment of right and wrong. You're stuck in a
loop: you say you always use your own judgment to determine right and
wrong; you say you need to submit to the rule of laws; when your own
judgment and the "laws" conflict, you are resigned to either a) do the
morally WRONG thing and obey the law, or b) BREAK the law and do what
your judgment tells you is the right thing. In case 'a' you wind up
shoving Jews into ovens (while explaining how sorry you are, but the
law is the law, and you're doing your best to get them to change it);
in case 'b' you just crapped all over your belief in "government."
> > Assuming you admit that everyone else must determine right and wrong
> > for himself, as well, how is the result different from anarchy?
>
> The problem is your definition. You have defined 'anarchy' to mean
> "everybody using there own judgment".
No, I haven't. I defined anarchy as the absence of 'government.'
Everyone using his own judgment is a human factor that is evidence of
anarchy, not the definition of it.
> Anarchy means the absence of govt or rules.
No. Anarchy is the absence of "government," i.e., the agency with the
exclusive RIGHT to use force in cases where it would otherwise be
wrong for ordinary mortals to use force. The state doesn't qualify as
an agent with an exclusive RIGHT to use force. No one does, in fact.
A chess club has rules. That isn't "government." McDonald's has
rules. Is McDonald's "government" in your opinion? The Mormon church
has rules. Are they your idea of "government?"
> People are going to get together and form govts in spite of your
> fantasies. The only choice is which style of govt.
"Governemnts"? Plural? How many "governments" can rule over a given
geographical area? Hundreds? Thousands? Why not millions? How is it
that millions of "governments" don't look like anarchy to you? It
would look like anarchy to me.
> > > > It sounds like this: "I can't prove there's an absolute standard of
> > > > right and wrong.
> > > Only God can set an absolute standard of right and wrong.
> > I thought you said there is no standard of right and wrong.
> I said there is no OBJECTIVE standard of right and wrong.
Then you don't trust your own judgment of right and wrong, and want
some other fallible humans - whose passions won't conform to the
dictates of reason and justice, you admit - to overrule your judgment
of right and wrong? How can you trust your judgment to choose the
right fallible humans to do that for you? What will you do if they
tell you to do something your own judgment deems immoral?
> > > > Jackney Sneeb says that all I can rely on is my own
> > > > judgment. But that means everyone else is doing the same thing. What
> > > > if we all don't agree on what right and wrong are? That would be
> > > > anarchy! We can't have that!
> > > Its not that "we can't have that", numbnut. Anarchy results in chaos
> > > which means life ain't no fun.
> > It's your opinion that anarchy only contains chaos.
> No, it is a scientific fact that people do not get along.
If that's true, then it's a scientific fact that anarchy exists.
> > 'Life ain't no
> > fun' is no excuse to invent an imaginary higher power to make life fun
> > for you.
> I don't have to invent anything. All I have to do is devise the best
> social contract.
Here's your social contract, read it, sign it, and get a lobotomy:
http://nogov4me.net/SocialContract.htm
Seriously, the "social contract" myth is the second biggest fraud next
to the income tax.
> > In anarchy, only YOU can make life fun or not.
> In anarchy, it is a race to be the best tyrant.
Or the desire to be a decent human being. Choose one.
> > > >So, I guess I have to find me an
> > > > absolute standard of right and wrong somewhere, so everyone will agree
> > > > and we won't have anarchy!
> > > That's the real problem. Everyone trying to play God.
> > And the other problem is you (and other state-worshippers) putting
> > those people in power and demanding they play god over you (and the
> > rest of us).
> Not at all- if we devise a scale with laissez-faire on one end and
> statism on the other, I would prefer the end with the most freedom.
You've got to be kidding. Your entire being recoils at the idea of
freedom. Freedom is anarchy. You hate that.
> Your belief that all govt is statism or state-worship is just stupid.
And your ad hominems are just name-calling.
> > > >But gee - here comes mean ol' Jackney
> > > > again telling me everyone else uses their own judgment to decide what
> > > > that absolute standard is, too. Hmmm, we're back to anarchy again.
> > > No, when people play God, the result is not anarchy but tyranny.
> > Tell that to your god-complex politicians. (And it's still anarchy.
> > Would it be tyranny if "government" existed?)
> You still don't get the checks and balances, eh?
Yes, I absolutely get it - it's hogwash. As I wrote in my essay,
which you apparently didn't read, it boils down to whoever has enough
force and will to use it on others in order to get their way. That's
anarchy. In case you're going to say "that's might makes right"
again, let me add: and anarchy does not mean the good guys always
win. The bad guys can win too - and the fact that the bad guys are
often as likely to win as the good guys is yet more evidence that
anarchy - not "government" - exists.
> > > > I
> > > > know - I'll invent a god to make everyone obey the same standard of
> > > > right and wrong, and if Jackney rejects that god I'll call him a liar,
> > > > and other nasty things! That will surely prove I'm right!"
> > > No, numbnut, we do what the American experience has taught us. No one
> > > plays God.
>
> > Politicians making "laws" (that they themselves pay no attention to)
> > for us ordinary mortals sounds like playing god to me.
>
> You still don't get representative govt, eh?
Yes, I get it - just more hogwash, again. You might want to pray to a
god or vote for a politician to represent you, as loony as that is -
however, you can't pray or vote and make one of them represent me.
> > > Each individual can work out his own "absolute" standard
> > > between himself and God.
> > You still haven't identified this "god" you keep referring to. I
> > think you secretly know it's a myth.
> No, I have always said Jesus was who He said He was.
Jesus is dead, if he lived at all. Try again.
> > > In the mean time and as far as society goes, we are going to
> > > compromise and set a standard which recognizes all men are fallible
> > > and no man speaks for God. We call that law.
>
> > We call that a blatant contradiction. "a) No man speaks for god, b)
> > all men are fallible, therefore c) some fallible men should make rules
> > for the rest of us."
> > 'a' and 'c' contradict one another.
> > --Jackney Sneeb
> Your moronic "logic" doesn't even make sense. Just because men make
> rules for the rest of us does not mean they are speaking for god.
You're absolutely right. Yet you want everyone to obey them as if
they were gods.
> Nevertheless, in the American system, legislatures REPRESENT the
> people.
Bullshit.
> They do not speak for themselves much less god.
Your beloved politicians don't speak for themselves, eh? Why is the
United States set up as a "republic" and not a democracy? Here's the
party line: because the so-called "founding fathers" wanted
politicians to represent the best interests of the whole country, even
when the people would choose something that would be bad for the
country - like slavery, for instance - so they set up elections
whereby politicians would pledge to do the right thing even if it went
against the will of the majority. Well? When your beloved tyrants -
I mean, politicians overrule your bad instincts, who are they speaking
for? You, or themselves?
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 3, 2:21 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> > Anarchy means the absence of govt or rules.
>
> No. Anarchy is the absence of "government," i.e., the agency with the
> exclusive RIGHT to use force in cases where it would otherwise be
> wrong for ordinary mortals to use force.
This is the synopsis of little boy malloy's entire "nogov4me"
argument.
He has to convince himself that HE DOES NOT CONSENT.
So here is his dilemma:
Suppose little boy malloy is stuck in the desert dying of thirst. He
comes upon a spring: but, this spring is guarded by a dragon.
The dragon says, "you may drink from this spring if you pledge your
undying loyalty to my master". little boy malloy declines and moves
on.
He comes upon another spring; and, this spring is guarded by 300
million people called Americans.
The people say, "you may drink from this spring if you agree to
contribute what you can to guarding the spring with us."
little boy malloy is too afraid to venture any further in search of a
spring. He does not even know if other springs exist or if the other
springs are guarded by dragons.
So what does little boy malloy do?
Answer- He drinks of the spring with the Americans and pretends that
he hasn't consented and whines like a baby.
Of course, little boy malloy has another option.- He could just die of
thirst; but, that would be too intellectually honest.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> JackneySn...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 2:21 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> > > Anarchy means the absence of govt or rules.
> > No. Anarchy is the absence of "government," i.e., the agency with the
> > exclusive RIGHT to use force in cases where it would otherwise be
> > wrong for ordinary mortals to use force.
> This is the synopsis of little boy malloy's entire "nogov4me"
> argument.
> He has to convince himself that HE DOES NOT CONSENT.
Lloyd Bonafide, Jay Santos, RC Collins, and Jackney Sneeb get together
and consent to be governed. They write a constitution in which they
give themselves power to draft others to mow their lawns, shine their
shoes, wash and wax their cars, and paint their houses. They give
their consent to be governed in this way, and declare that anyone who
chooses to reside in their neighborhood consents as well, by their
very presence in that neighborhood. ed senter gets a draft notice in
the mail to report to Jay's house to mow the lawn, RC's house to shine
his shoes, Lloyd's house to paint the trim, and Jackney's house to wax
his car. ed senter recognizes that these four guys can literally
force him to comply if they wanted to, so they must therefore have the
right to do this to him - after all, might makes right in ed's
opinion. ed doesn't want to serve these guys. He thinks it's unfair
that they can have the right to order him around. ed must convince
himself that HE DOES NOT CONSENT to be ruled in order to be justified
in refusing to obey the "laws" of Mssrs. Bonafide, Santos, Collins,
and Sneeb. Yet he doesn't leave the country, and by his own argument
(using his own [bad] judgment), his refusal to leave represents his
consent.
ed is screwed.
> So here is his dilemma:
> Suppose little boy malloy is stuck in the desert dying of thirst. He
> comes upon a spring: but, this spring is guarded by a dragon.
> The dragon says, "you may drink from this spring if you pledge your
> undying loyalty to my master". little boy malloy declines and moves
> on.
> He comes upon another spring; and, this spring is guarded by 300
> million people called Americans.
> The people say, "you may drink from this spring if you agree to
> contribute what you can to guarding the spring with us."
> little boy malloy is too afraid to venture any further in search of a
> spring. He does not even know if other springs exist or if the other
> springs are guarded by dragons.
> So what does little boy malloy do?
> Answer- He drinks of the spring with the Americans and pretends that
> he hasn't consented and whines like a baby.
> Of course, little boy malloy has another option.- He could just die of
> thirst; but, that would be too intellectually honest.
ed's bizarre fantasy is that he should have to ask 300 million people
for permission to have a drink of water. That's simply insane.
--Jackney Sneeb
Paul Thomas, CPA
<Jackne...@gmail.com> wrote
> Lloyd Bonafide, Jay Santos, RC Collins, and Jackney
> Sneeb get together and consent to be governed.
Exactly.
> They write a constitution in which they give themselves
> power to draft others
What "others"??
> They give their consent to be governed in this way, and declare
> that anyone who chooses to reside in their neighborhood
> consents as well, by their very presence in that neighborhood.
Exactly. If you go to China, you consent to Chineese laws and to be
governed by Chineese rulers. If you go to Iran, you consent to Iranian laws
and to be governed by Iranian rulers.
Let's shrink this down to a managable size. There's Malloy in Malloy's
house. Malloy, being the ruler of his house sets the rules and laws of his
house. He governs all those who enter his house. Those who don't abide by
Malloy's house rules are expelled from the house and/or not invited back.
It's a little tough to expel a minor child, so Malloy sets about a system of
punishment for violating Malloy's house rules. Minor child grows up. Adult
child chooses to reside in Malloy's house and therefore consents to Malloy's
house rules by his or her very presence in that house.
Now, let's keep pretending that Malloy has a family, which means there may
be a Mrs. Malloy. Mrs. Malloy has a say in 1) the house rules, and 2) the
punishment for house rules violations. Her say in 1 and 2 are dependent on
a) your respect of her and/or b) your fear of her.
Let's expand this further. Malloy owns a business (it IS pretend you know).
Malloy sets the rules for his employees and customers. You go to work for
Malloy. By doing so you consent to Malloy's rules. And you consent to
Malloy's business rules by your presence every day on the job in Malloy's
business establishment. You don't like Malloy's rules? Find a job
elsewhere.
If you are a customer of Malloy's, you consent to Malloy's business rules
every time you conduct business with Malloy. You consent to Malloy's
business rules by your very presence in his business establishment. You
don't like Malloy's rules? Take your business elsewhere.
Does that enlighten you some? Or do I need to make it simpler for you.
--
Two Reasons Why It's So Hard To Solve A Redneck Murder:
1. All the DNA is the same.
2. There are no dental records.
--------------------------
Jackne...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Let's shrink this down to a managable size. There's Malloy in Malloy's
> house.
> Does that enlighten you some?
I'm way ahead of you - I already knew you believe congress owns the
whole country, if not the entire world. Now everyone knows it.
--Jackney Sneeb
Paul Thomas, CPA
<Jackne...@gmail.com> wrote
> I'm way ahead of you -
Yet you remain hundreds of laps behind.
You don't know how to respond, or worse, you are fearful of your response,
so you babble on about ownership. I've said nothing about ownership. So
what compels you to breach that topic. "Oh look, there's a cloud in the
sky" "Nice birdie." "I'll have fries with that."
Quick Malloy, change the subject lest you realize how goofy you are.
Jackne...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <JackneySn...@gmail.com> wrote
Anyone can see that you tried to make an analogy between a bunch of
guys getting together to make rules for other people to obey and a man
having guests in his home and requiring them to behave in a certain
way. You obviously implied that a man owning a house is no different
from congress making commands an enforcing them on the general
population.
It's almost embarrassing to have to explain your own loony argument to
you.
--Jackney Sneeb
Paul Thomas
<Jackne...@gmail.com> wrote
> Anyone can see that you tried to make an analogy between
> a bunch of guys getting together to make rules for other
> people to obey and a man having guests in his home and
> requiring them to behave in a certain way.
Then size matters. Who knew.
> You obviously implied that a man owning a house
I never said that anyone owned a house. You implied that. All on your own.
I did say "There's Malloy in Malloy's house." It could be a rental.
Knowing you, it probably is base housing.
But you keep trying to change the "WHAT'S THAT!!!!????" subject as that's
all you have as a defense of your weak position.
I should have known that my example was waaaaaaaaaaaaay over your head.
--
If electricity comes from electrons,
does morality come from morons?
----------------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
Jackne...@gmail.com
> I never said that anyone owned a house. You implied that. All on your own.
On Aug 5, 5:40 am, "Paul Thomas, CPA" <paulthomascp...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
> Let's shrink this down to a managable size. There's Malloy in Malloy's
> house.
You are a moron.
--Jackney Sneeb
Jackne...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 14:21:27 -0700 (PDT), nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> \> \>
> \> In anarchy, only YOU can make life fun or not.
> \>
> \
> \In anarchy, it is a race to be the best tyrant.
> \
>
> Ed Senter (AKA Nat) thinks that "tyranny" is "anarchy". Clearly he (they?)
> don't have a clue...
Actually ed does have a clue, unlike his fellow state-worshippers
here. ed at least has a philosophical basis for his belief in
"government," which he has stated as "might makes right." The
contradictions inherent in that underlying assumption make defending
that position a hard row to hoe for ed - and he would rather continue
defending it than adopt a less vulnerable position. However, I give
ed credit for trying to debate (ignoring for the most part his
irrelevant name-calling) his part of the discussion, relying on his
own core belief.
--Jackney Sneeb
Paul Thomas, CPA
<Jackne...@gmail.com> wrote
I just love it when you keep proving that I didn't say you owned the house.
Keep it up old man.
The lengths you'll go to in order to change the topic away from the
silliness of your position.
--
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
----------------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Watkinsville, Georgia
Jackne...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:40:44 -0700 (PDT), "JackneySn...@gmail.com"
>
> <JackneySn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> \On Aug 5, 10:20 am, "Paul Thomas, CPA" <paulthomascp...@bellsouth.net>
> how his loony arguments have already embarrassed him...
If ignorance is bliss, Paul Thomas must be the giddiest man on earth.
--Jackney Sneeb
Paul Thomas, CPA
Your inept insults only mean I'm right on target.
By the way, keep proving that I didn't say you owned the house if that is
what it takes to keep you from discussing the issue.
Paul Thomas, CPA
There's Bob in Bob's pup tent. Bob, being the ruler of his pup tent sets
the rules and laws of his pup tent. He governs all those who enter his pup
tent. Those who don't abide by Bob's pup tent rules are expelled from the
pup tent and/or not invited back.
Bob falls in love and marries. Bob and Mrs Bob up-size to a cabin tent.
Bob and Mrs Bob set rules for the cabin tent. Mrs Bob is soon "with child".
Little bob is born.
It's tough to expel a minor child, so Bob and Mrs Bob set about a system of
punishment for violating the cabin tent rules. The rules, as well as the
punishment change over time to fit the circumstances, but still, Bob and Mrs
Bob set the rules. Little bob has no say in the rules or the punishment,
yet he is subject to both.
Minor child grows up. Adult child chooses to reside in Bob's cabin tent and
therefore consents to the cabin tent rules (established by others) by his or
her very presence in that tent. Little bob still has no say in the
establishment of the rules or the punishment for rule violators. Even if
they decide to give everyone one vote on the rules and punishment, little
bob could not trump the votes of Bob and Mrs Bob.
Little bob grows to not like the rules, sticks his fingers in his ears and
yells out "Nanny, nanny, boo boo." as if that changes anything. Little bob
rants on about how he alone decides what is right and what is wrong, and how
he isn't subject to the rules which he did not concent to. Little bob even
spells it out in all caps, as if that makes a difference. Little bob does
all his bitching and complaining to the one friend he has - Malloy, a
has-been - who laments with him, as Malloy is in the same boat but a
different tent (if you know what I mean).
Both Malloy and little bob go back to their respective tents to voluntarily
be subjected to the very laws they rant about on a daily basis.
Have I lost you yet Bob?
Archmedes
ROTFLMAO
Funny stuff!
Hey, it gives me an idea for a book:
"There's No Pup Tent Like No Pup Tent"
Paul Thomas, CPA
I wouldn't doubt that both Malloy and Bob are "victims" of their own greed
and will soon be foreclosed upon, if they aren't already homeless.
nat
Except for your misconception about the "draft", that is the way it
is.
<shrug>
> > So here is his dilemma:
> > Suppose little boy malloy is stuck in the desert dying of thirst. He
> > comes upon a spring: but, this spring is guarded by a dragon.
> > The dragon says, "you may drink from this spring if you pledge your
> > undying loyalty to my master". little boy malloy declines and moves
> > on.
> > He comes upon another spring; and, this spring is guarded by 300
> > million people called Americans.
> > The people say, "you may drink from this spring if you agree to
> > contribute what you can to guarding the spring with us."
> > little boy malloy is too afraid to venture any further in search of a
> > spring. He does not even know if other springs exist or if the other
> > springs are guarded by dragons.
> > So what does little boy malloy do?
> > Answer- He drinks of the spring with the Americans and pretends that
> > he hasn't consented and whines like a baby.
> > Of course, little boy malloy has another option.- He could just die of
> > thirst; but, that would be too intellectually honest.
>
> ed's bizarre fantasy is that he should have to ask 300 million people
> for permission to have a drink of water. That's simply insane.
> --Jackney Sneeb
LMAO
This is year 2008. Every square inch of this planet is already
claimed by some one. They got there first.
So you think reality is "insane"?
I guess the only thing left for you to do is kill yourself or keep on
whining like a baby.
nat
Bob wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 14:21:27 -0700 (PDT), nat <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> \
> \
> \Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> \> On Jul 29, 1:52 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> \>
> \> In anarchy, only YOU can make life fun or not.
> \>
> \
> \In anarchy, it is a race to be the best tyrant.
> \
> \
>
> Ed Senter (AKA Nat) thinks that "tyranny" is "anarchy". Clearly he (they?)
> don't have a clue...
Wanna bet?
You must be using special definitions like your pal little boy malloy
in order to convince yourself that you have an argument.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> > ed's bizarre fantasy is that he should have to ask 300 million people
> > for permission to have a drink of water. That's simply insane.
> > --Jackney Sneeb
>
> LMAO
Laughing at inappropriate times is evidence of insanity.
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 5, 7:46 pm, Bob <bo...@soc.eert.edu> wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 14:21:27 -0700 (PDT), nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > \
> > \\JackneySn...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > \> On Jul 29, 1:52 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> > \>
> > \> In anarchy, only YOU can make life fun or not.
> > \>
> > \
> > \In anarchy, it is a race to be the best tyrant.
> > \
> > \
> >
> > Ed Senter (AKA Nat) thinks that "tyranny" is "anarchy". Clearly he (they?)
> > don't have a clue...
>
> Actually ed does have a clue, unlike his fellow state-worshippers
> here. ed at least has a philosophical basis for his belief in
> "government," which he has stated as "might makes right."
Let's get it correct, little boy malloy.
The philosophical basis for govt is "the passions of men will not
conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint."
Now you claim that in order for govt to be "legitimate", it must have
the "right".
I have offered proof that "might makes right", i.e., whatever is
right, it takes power to make it so.
You claim that whatever is right or wrong all depends on individual
judgment. Fine, but that claim is essentially circular and
meaningless outside one's esoteric sphere of existence.
It does not address interaction with other people.
> The
> contradictions inherent in that underlying assumption make defending
> that position a hard row to hoe for ed - and he would rather continue
> defending it than adopt a less vulnerable position.
Your circular game simply has not uncovered a single contradiction.
In fact, when the real issue is pressed -(consent)-, you tuck tail and
run.