Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 ... 26   Go Down

Author Topic: open carry protests  (Read 106416 times)

NHArticleTen

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
  • Join The Ron Paul Write-In Revolution Today!
    • Adventures In Legal Land
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #270 on: July 06, 2008, 07:05:23 am »

;D...I like this guy

You like cops who attack innocent people for no reason, and think those cops shouldn't be punished.  I don't think you should insult B.D. Ross by saying that you like him, too.

Joe

Eh, it's not really an insult.

And we might be able to change his opinion around. Show him the light. He is actually here after all. Bothered to sign up. Perhaps he really does have some sliver of interest and he's not just trying to make trouble. I don't agree with everything he's said. But combatively arguing with him and exaggerating what he's said isn't going to turn him around.

Keltec, what were you originally try to tell us again?

My original "complaint" is that I don't, foundationally, agree with the way the group gets their message out.  I think that there are better ways to "fight the system".  I really appreciate your comment, because I do agree with this group in a LOT of things...just not the way the message is delivered that's all    ;D

Quote
"because I do agree with this group in a LOT of things...just not the way the message is delivered that's all"

Fortunately, "we" don't need your agreement on our "ways"...since the only thing we are demanding from you and everyone else is for "everyone to leave everyone else alone"...

Unfortunately, you seem to approve of at least some of the aggression/force/fraud of the supposed "state" and it's looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

Those perpetrators running around in costumes, thinking erroneously that they have some magical mystical murder wand of power given to them by some supposed mob-mentality "majority" "democracy"(www.democracyisnotfreedom.com) are conducting themselves in violation of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle and in violation of Basic Inherent Inalienable Irrevocable Human Rights.

You can't have it both ways...
You can't have different "classes" of human beings...some with this mystic power...and some without...
Either you're a looter...or an Individual Sovereign Human Being, student, and advocate of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle...
A slave to the mob-mentality "majority" or an equal to each and every other human being willing to repel, destroy, and eliminate the looters and their minions...

May your chains weigh heavily as they carry you to the depths...

Enjoy!

kelteckiller

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #271 on: July 06, 2008, 10:34:45 am »

;D...I like this guy

You like cops who attack innocent people for no reason, and think those cops shouldn't be punished.  I don't think you should insult B.D. Ross by saying that you like him, too.

Joe

Eh, it's not really an insult.

And we might be able to change his opinion around. Show him the light. He is actually here after all. Bothered to sign up. Perhaps he really does have some sliver of interest and he's not just trying to make trouble. I don't agree with everything he's said. But combatively arguing with him and exaggerating what he's said isn't going to turn him around.

Keltec, what were you originally try to tell us again?

My original "complaint" is that I don't, foundationally, agree with the way the group gets their message out.  I think that there are better ways to "fight the system".  I really appreciate your comment, because I do agree with this group in a LOT of things...just not the way the message is delivered that's all    ;D

Quote
"because I do agree with this group in a LOT of things...just not the way the message is delivered that's all"

Fortunately, "we" don't need your agreement on our "ways"...since the only thing we are demanding from you and everyone else is for "everyone to leave everyone else alone"...

Unfortunately, you seem to approve of at least some of the aggression/force/fraud of the supposed "state" and it's looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

Those perpetrators running around in costumes, thinking erroneously that they have some magical mystical murder wand of power given to them by some supposed mob-mentality "majority" "democracy"(www.democracyisnotfreedom.com) are conducting themselves in violation of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle and in violation of Basic Inherent Inalienable Irrevocable Human Rights.

You can't have it both ways...
You can't have different "classes" of human beings...some with this mystic power...and some without...
Either you're a looter...or an Individual Sovereign Human Being, student, and advocate of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle...
A slave to the mob-mentality "majority" or an equal to each and every other human being willing to repel, destroy, and eliminate the looters and their minions...

May your chains weigh heavily as they carry you to the depths...

Enjoy!



I was born free, I am free, and I will always be free.  My freedom has NEVER been restricted.  If you think this country and its situation is bad....you haven't seen bad.  I've seen bad...This place is the greatest country on the planet....is it perfect? No...but you can chase your Eutopian dreams to the depths...
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #272 on: July 06, 2008, 10:35:10 am »

Books, usually. Written records. The standard fare we use when trying to determine what other people are thinking at "some other coordinates in the space-time continuum".

Yeah, good luck with that.  There are no Federalist Papers in this case.

Very often, the annotated version of the statutes will themselves contain citations to a statement of purpose or intent or a record of the statute's history.

Yeah, look at all those statements...

For example, in this case may note the original law was passed in 1969. Do you really think the legislators actually contemplated the pervasive use of video recorders to record police attacking innocent people? Probably not. As I said before, this appears to be a wire-tapping law that someone would now like to use in a more expansive capacity. The legislators probably did not intend for the law to be used in the way you're describing.

Yes, clearly the date determines everything... ::)

As far as mind-probing device, I'm not aware of any such device. Or why you'd even use it--since the information is usually written down. If your confusion is that legislators decide what the law is and judges have no function, perhaps you don't quite understand how powers are separated in our current system.

Powers are not separated in the current system.  Anyone who thinks they are has his head in the sand, at best.

Actually, yes. You did, in fact, say pedestrian.

Straw man.  I said pedestrian, and never claimed that I did not.  What I do assert that I did not say is "public."

Since you seem to think it's important to now point out that you left ambiguous whether the pedestrian was in public, let's just cut to the guts of this question: was your pedestrian in public or not? If I didn't interpret what you wrote correctly, what did you mean?

Given that I stated that RSA570-A applies, you have prima facie evidence that he was not in public.

Not that it's even relevant to the actual topic, which was body armor, not making audio recordings.  RSA570-A was one example of a felony that one could engage in, triggering the body armor prohibition.

I'm not sure of your purpose for randomly stating this. It's not really responsive to anything I've said. Perhaps you're suggesting that you're also not competent to speak in this area.

I think you need to take Reading Comprehension 101.  I don't comment on things which I do not have the competence to comment on.

I do recall you attempted to use the fact that I am not licensed in NH to suggest that I was not competent to interpret a statute. By implication, you would also not be competent to comment either. (Though, I completely disagree with that original premise.)

I have never claimed any such thing.  I can assert that completely without reservation because there is no possible situation ever, in history or any conceivable future event, in which I would ever claim that lacking a government license displays incompetence.  You really need to work on your reading comprehension, if it is poor enough that you could imagine I said anything of the sort.

Just to be clear, I am NOT saying you're not competent. Personally, I don't think attorneys are particularly special in their reading abilities.

Given that you've implied (but never explicitly stated) that you are an attorney, and given your apparently skill with reading comprehension, and given that "special" typically means "outside the normative range," I'd suggest that at least one attorney has "special" reading abilities.  Which direction on the Bell curve that deviation is in, is left as an exercise to the reader...

But by your own hand, you appear to be saying this is an area that you should not be commenting on.

No, I'm quite competent to comment on these topics.

Still, you do seem to be representing that you've done the research in this area and you have the specific citations to controlling authority. And yet, you were quite eager--before anyone asked for it--to declare that you're unwilling to put any of your sources on this thread.

A) RSA570-A was an side-example, not particularly relevant to the topic, so it would be a useless tangent.
B) Your lack of research ability should be corrected by practice.
C) Most anyone here who is actually involved in the liberty movement is aware of RSA570-A, because it is a major point of contention, so replicating things that "we" already know, simply so that you do not have to do any research, would be rather pointless.

I think you should get a new job.
That's very kind of you to say so. As you previously shared, you don't comment on things in which you aren't competent in. Perhaps you shouldn't be commenting--at least without something more compelling to base your decision on than a few posts that criticize your own. If you truly wish to avoid addressing any actual criticisms of your posts by further personally attacking my ability to perform in my professional capacity, I would encourage you to review the Forum Posting Policies. Do be a civil, non-libelous poster :)

For a supposed-attorney, you really don't seem to understand the law very well.  Libel has a very specific meaning, and you would be benefited by researching that meaning before making such implications.

Seems to me the situation you described--quite clearly--falls outside the plain language of the statute.
In the situation you've described, there is no utterance that would qualify as a "telecommunication" or an "oral communication" under the statute.
There's really no way around that. The statute's language simply doesn't support a criminal act in your situation.
And if you disagree, please contribute by telling us why--upon what reasoning--you disagree.

I did say something about "competent," did I not?  In the situation I gave, the plain language of the statute applies.

"Every competent legal professional who's read it?" Really? You do mean attorneys, right? You didn't actually say "attorneys" or "lawyers". I wouldn't want you to now later claim, "Oh, I meant paralegals."

I would never claim that competence is related to having a license from the government.  Quite the contrary - competent professionals (at least, those who have thought about it with any degree of rationality) oppose licensing.
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #273 on: July 06, 2008, 10:35:21 am »

It's hardly an accusation. It's an accurate description of the discussion transpiring in this thread. In your previous post, you explicitly quoted the questions I asked. If you refer to your response, you essentially refused to answer the questions. So I assume you were, in fact, aware of the questions you now claim to be ignorant of.

I don't claim to be ignorant of them.  I suggest you re-read your accusation, and my response.  I did address your questions.

To summarize this into a single question: Is there a case in New Hampshire where a person has been convicted of wiretapping/eavesdropping for using a video camera to record the police beating up a pedestrian? And now, in addition, what's the case? And if you cannot answer this question, it really is okay to say, "I don't know."

There is a difference between "willingness" to waste time here, and "ability."

And if you have ulterior motives for withholding information from the thread, that's quite alright. By being here, I suppose I just assumed you're trying to help the cause of freedom, rather than hinder it.

I fail to see how pandering to those who are unwilling to do their own research, but perfectly willing to make (false) comments about things which they do not understand, is in any way hindering the cause of freedom.

Joe, I have no need or desire to attack your character.

Probably shouldn't do it, then.

Your own demeanor speaks volumes more about that than I could ever say.
Despite how you seem to approach the boards here, the whole world is not against you.

While you're working on reading comprehension, you should probably work on a bit of psychology.  Although maybe it is just the lack of comprehension that is leading you to false psychological conclusions.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #274 on: July 06, 2008, 10:40:16 am »

But combatively arguing with him and exaggerating what he's said isn't going to turn him around.

There is no exaggeration.  That's what he said.  Or, has implied and repeatedly failed to address.

Like I said...EVERYONE (including myself) is hypocritical. some more than others....it's human nature

No, it's not.  Claiming that one's own failings are "just human nature" in order to avoid addressing those failings and growing has a fancy psychological name, but basically boils down to gross immaturity.

I was born free, I am free, and I will always be free.  My freedom has NEVER been restricted.  If you think this country and its situation is bad....you haven't seen bad.  I've seen bad...This place is the greatest country on the planet....is it perfect? No...but you can chase your Eutopian dreams to the depths...

Sounds like a slave defending slavery...  LOL

"Massa is nice.  Massa never mistreats me.  Massa only punishes me for my own good."

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

kelteckiller

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #275 on: July 06, 2008, 10:43:28 am »

But combatively arguing with him and exaggerating what he's said isn't going to turn him around.

There is no exaggeration.  That's what he said.  Or, has implied and repeatedly failed to address.

Like I said...EVERYONE (including myself) is hypocritical. some more than others....it's human nature

No, it's not.  Claiming that one's own failings are "just human nature" in order to avoid addressing those failings and growing has a fancy psychological name, but basically boils down to gross immaturity.

I was born free, I am free, and I will always be free.  My freedom has NEVER been restricted.  If you think this country and its situation is bad....you haven't seen bad.  I've seen bad...This place is the greatest country on the planet....is it perfect? No...but you can chase your Eutopian dreams to the depths...

Sounds like a slave defending slavery...  LOL

"Massa is nice.  Massa never mistreats me.  Massa only punishes me for my own good."

Joe

I am a slave to nothing.  The best thing about my situation is knowing how great I have it.  I am a very lucky person and appreciate my situation every day.  I wish one day you too can share in my pure enjoyment for life!
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #276 on: July 06, 2008, 10:52:20 am »

I am a slave to nothing.  The best thing about my situation is knowing how great I have it.  I am a very lucky person and appreciate my situation every day.  I wish one day you too can share in my pure enjoyment for life!

You spend 80% of your productive capacity funding the government.  You apparently don't want to do anything that is illegal, if your freedom is not being restricted.  You must not mind that governments murdered over a quarter of a billion people in the last century, and are working on topping that record, this century.  Need I go on?

You aren't enjoying "life."  You're enjoying a fantasy world.

I do enjoy life.  The real thing.  Not some delusional fantasy.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

kelteckiller

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #277 on: July 06, 2008, 11:48:59 am »

I am a slave to nothing.  The best thing about my situation is knowing how great I have it.  I am a very lucky person and appreciate my situation every day.  I wish one day you too can share in my pure enjoyment for life!

You spend 80% of your productive capacity funding the government.  You apparently don't want to do anything that is illegal, if your freedom is not being restricted.  You must not mind that governments murdered over a quarter of a billion people in the last century, and are working on topping that record, this century.  Need I go on?

You aren't enjoying "life."  You're enjoying a fantasy world.

I do enjoy life.  The real thing.  Not some delusional fantasy.

Joe

Good we have something in common!  We both enjoy life! All right!

Good Figure
rad
GFY!
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #278 on: July 06, 2008, 05:32:55 pm »

Straw man.  I said pedestrian, and never claimed that I did not.  What I do assert that I did not say is "public."

I directly asked you whether you meant "in public" or not and you call Straw Man?
That's not a Straw Man argument.
Or an argument.
It's a question.

Let's try again: in your situation, was your pedestrian in public?

If you continue to avoid the question, I assume you agree that it's a reasonable to assume your pedestrian was in public. If your pedestrian was being beaten in public, RSA 570-A clearly does not apply to the situation you presented. I'm far from excited to debate this minor point. But you seem to think it's important to point out that you didn't explicitly state "public". (More on that later.)

Given that I stated that RSA570-A applies, you have prima facie evidence that he was not in public.

Now, now. There's no need to bring in law latin to shroud your lack of support.
I mean, I could just as well respond that you said "the cop was beating a random pedestrian."
As pedestrians are in public, you also gave "prima facie evidence" that he was not in public.
You could easily fix this ambiguity by answering the question in the previous paragraph.

Now, you didn't state that that "the statute applies."
(At least, not until your post that I'm commenting on right now).

You wrote that that the plain language of the statute applies.
And I disagreed. Because it clearly does not.
Furthermore, I told you why the plain language doesn't apply.
But you haven't responded to this.
(More on the that at the bottom.)

Sounds almost like, you're now trying to twist the statute into applying by declaring, "Well, of course I meant the pedestrian wasn't in public! If he were in public, what I've claimed would be completely absurd."

And you'd be right. Because trying to "rewrite" the statute to make it much more onerous that it is really doesn't make any sense.
The plain language of the statute doesn't apply.
If you think it does, again, I'd be happy to hear why you think so.
But if you can't justify your conclusion, just bow out gracefully and be done with it.
Then, we'll all go home happy knowing that videotaping a cop beating up a random pedestrian won't land you a prison sentence.

Not that it's even relevant to the actual topic, which was body armor, not making audio recordings.  RSA570-A was one example of a felony that one could engage in, triggering the body armor prohibition.

Well, I think the actual topic was about open carrying. The topics do tend to shift over time as people discuss. Especially on a long thread.

I originally stated, that I don't think 570-A would trigger the felony body armor prohibition, because 570-A has absolutely no relationship to the crime of committing a felony while using body armor. The law doesn't explicitly carve out that exception. But in actuality, in a courtroom, in front of a judge, that's the argument you make and you'd have a very, very good chance of being successful. But now we've moved on, and I've said 570-A doesn't even apply to the situation you've presented anyway.

I think you need to take Reading Comprehension 101.  I don't comment on things which I do not have the competence to comment on.

Yet--by what you've said--you still appear to be doing it.
You're saying one thing. But then doing another.

Again, I'm not saying you're not competent. Just pointing out you're not being consistent. (More at the bottom.)

I have never claimed any such thing.  I can assert that completely without reservation because there is no possible situation ever, in history or any conceivable future event, in which I would ever claim that lacking a government license displays incompetence. You really need to work on your reading comprehension, if it is poor enough that you could imagine I said anything of the sort.

Never?
Completely without reservation?
No possible situation ever?
In history or in any conceivable future event?

No need to imagine. 'Cause it sure looks like you're trying to say something "of the sort": Right here. (More on this at the bottom of the post.)

A) RSA570-A was an side-example, not particularly relevant to the topic, so it would be a useless tangent.
B) Your lack of research ability should be corrected by practice.
C) Most anyone here who is actually involved in the liberty movement is aware of RSA570-A, because it is a major point of contention, so replicating things that "we" already know, simply so that you do not have to do any research, would be rather pointless.

A. I absolutely agree. As I've been saying from the very beginning, this law is not relevant.

B. That's quite a conclusion. Are you publishing on this forum that I lack the ability to do legal research?

C. "Most anyone here who is actually involved in the liberty movement is aware of RSA570-A. . . ." ?!

I see we've downgraded from "Every competent legal professional [agrees]," to, "most anyone actually involved with the liberty movement is aware of . . . ."

In the next backpedal, should we expect that No True Scotsman would ever disagree with you?

What happened to every competent legal professional who's read it? Where did they go?
Again, who are these attorneys?
I'm not joking around.
This is a serious issue.
I would like to call them up.

If you can post some contact information, that'd be great.
If you can't, just say it, so I won't be wasting my time.

For a supposed-attorney, you really don't seem to understand the law very well.  Libel has a very specific meaning, and you would be benefited by researching that meaning before making such implications.

It appears you have no concept of what you're writing about. By your own rule of not commenting on things you're not competent on, why again are you commenting?

However, I would encourage you to continue researching the law of libel. Particularly you may wish to try looking under "Libel, per se". I'm sure your search engine of choice will also bring up some useful reference material. Or, if you have access to a library, try Prosser on Torts or Dobbs on Tort will do the trick. And after doing so, again, please review the Posting Forum Guidelines. Do be a friendly and courteous FSPer :D

I did say something about "competent," did I not?  In the situation I gave, the plain language of the statute applies.

That's a conclusion.
Again, how did you get there?
Please explain why you think the statute does apply.
If you want anyone to believe you, you're going to have to tell us why you think the statute applies.
Just concluding that "the plain language of the statute applies" doesn't mean that it actually does.
Unless you want to keep "begging the question."

I would never claim that competence is related to having a license from the government.  Quite the contrary - competent professionals (at least, those who have thought about it with any degree of rationality) oppose licensing.

Never? Because you do seem to imply it. Read here again.

Unless, despite implying it, you're saying the reader should not have inferred it because you didn't explicitly write it. Seems to be a trend in your responses; that readers should never imply anything further than what you've explicitly written. And if that's the case, you're holding yourself to a vastly different standard than the one you're holding others to:

But combatively arguing with him and exaggerating what he's said isn't going to turn him around.

There is no exaggeration.  That's what [Kelteckiller] said.  Or, has implied and repeatedly failed to address.

You may wish to review my previous post where I mentioned "special pleading". Might elucidate what's going on. Take the standard you just announced here and apply it to nearly everything you've written above. I think it reveals the absurdity of the position you're clinging to. And where your posts don't hold water or a person disagrees with them, you're attacking the writer rather than the writing. I really encourage you to elevate the level of discourse here. (And I'm quite guilty for perpetuating it.) But by calling other FSPers (and prospective FSPers) ignorant, or uneducated, or whatever--sure doesn't make FSP look like an inviting place. At some point, I hope you sit down and think about whether that's the kind of attitude that welcomes people to join and contribute.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #279 on: July 07, 2008, 12:22:54 pm »

Good we have something in common!  We both enjoy life! All right!

No, I enjoy life.  You enjoy a fantasy world that you have constructed in your own mind.

I directly asked you whether you meant "in public" or not and you call Straw Man?
That's not a Straw Man argument.
Or an argument.
It's a question.

You did not ask a question.  You made a statement regarding what I did and did not say.  Anyone who cares to read it can easily scroll back and do so.

Let's try again: in your situation, was your pedestrian in public?

No.

Now, now. There's no need to bring in law latin to shroud your lack of support.

"Law latin?"  That's laughable.  "Prima facie" is used in many situations, not just law.  And is part of my normal speech.

I originally stated, that I don't think 570-A would trigger the felony body armor prohibition, because 570-A has absolutely no relationship to the crime of committing a felony while using body armor. The law doesn't explicitly carve out that exception. But in actuality, in a courtroom, in front of a judge, that's the argument you make and you'd have a very, very good chance of being successful.

Which displays a laughable lack of understanding of the legal system.  Unrelated laws are used all the time to attack folks.  Chances are, anyone you meet has committed at least one felony during his lifetime, probably without even knowing it.

Some jurisdictions (Maine, for example) enshrine the de minimis defense in the statutes, but even with that text right there, I wouldn't imagine any good success rate at trying that with a felony.

I think you need to take Reading Comprehension 101.  I don't comment on things which I do not have the competence to comment on.
Yet--by what you've said--you still appear to be doing it.
You're saying one thing. But then doing another.

Again, I'm not saying you're not competent. Just pointing out you're not being consistent.

But I am competent to discuss these matters.

Never?
Completely without reservation?
No possible situation ever?
In history or in any conceivable future event?

No need to imagine. 'Cause it sure looks like you're trying to say something "of the sort": Right here.

You suggested that you were not competent to discuss the matter.  I agreed.

B. That's quite a conclusion. Are you publishing on this forum that I lack the ability to do legal research?

You are demonstrating a lack of ability.  I would suggest that you correct it.

C. "Most anyone here who is actually involved in the liberty movement is aware of RSA570-A. . . ." ?!

I see we've downgraded from "Every competent legal professional [agrees]," to, "most anyone actually involved with the liberty movement is aware of . . . ."

In the next backpedal, should we expect that No True Scotsman would ever disagree with you?

What happened to every competent legal professional who's read it? Where did they go?

Reading comprehension, again.  Saying that one group (those involved in the liberty movement in NH) is "aware" of some issue does not imply that another group (competent legal professionals) may not have a higher understanding.

Again, who are these attorneys?
I'm not joking around.
This is a serious issue.
I would like to call them up.

If you can post some contact information, that'd be great.
If you can't, just say it, so I won't be wasting my time.

You're wasting my time, not yours.  Go do some research.

However, I would encourage you to continue researching the law of libel. Particularly you may wish to try looking under "Libel, per se". I'm sure your search engine of choice will also bring up some useful reference material. Or, if you have access to a library, try Prosser on Torts or Dobbs on Tort will do the trick. And after doing so, again, please review the Posting Forum Guidelines. Do be a friendly and courteous FSPer :D

I'm aware of the laws involved in libel.  And the forum posting guidelines.

Unless, despite implying it, you're saying the reader should not have inferred it because you didn't explicitly write it. Seems to be a trend in your responses; that readers should never imply anything further than what you've explicitly written.

Anything I've written necessarily implies many things.  You, however, imagine that all manner of un-stated and even contradictory things are implied, which are not.  That's your problem, not mine.

You may wish to review my previous post where I mentioned "special pleading". Might elucidate what's going on. Take the standard you just announced here and apply it to nearly everything you've written above. I think it reveals the absurdity of the position you're clinging to.

I apply the same standards to all people, including myself.  It's rather a hallmark of libertarianism.  Odd that you don't seem to know that...

And where your posts don't hold water or a person disagrees with them, you're attacking the writer rather than the writing. I really encourage you to elevate the level of discourse here. (And I'm quite guilty for perpetuating it.)

When you claim that you are right, simply because you have made the statement, with no ability to support it, then you are setting yourself up as an authority on that subject, and your competence is a valid topic of discussion.

But by calling other FSPers (and prospective FSPers) ignorant, or uneducated, or whatever--sure doesn't make FSP look like an inviting place. At some point, I hope you sit down and think about whether that's the kind of attitude that welcomes people to join and contribute.

I'm not particularly interested in welcoming everyone.  I do not want the vast majority of the population to "join and contribute."  I want to welcome those who will work for liberty, research things before making claims, and generally behave as rational adults (excepting those who are, by virtue of age, compelled to behave as children - they have an excuse for non-adult behavior).

This is not some socialist PC hug-fest where there are no stupid questions and no wrong answers, and everyone gets a gold star at the end of the day.

I'm all for being warm and fuzzy, but towards those who have actually earned respect and friendship.

I'm even quite civil, polite, and helpful towards those who are working towards liberty and not concurrently damaging the cause.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

NHArticleTen

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
  • Join The Ron Paul Write-In Revolution Today!
    • Adventures In Legal Land
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #280 on: July 07, 2008, 07:09:33 pm »

I'm not particularly interested in welcoming everyone.  I do not want the vast majority of the population to "join and contribute."  I want to welcome those who will work for liberty, research things before making claims, and generally behave as rational adults (excepting those who are, by virtue of age, compelled to behave as children - they have an excuse for non-adult behavior).

This is not some socialist PC hug-fest where there are no stupid questions and no wrong answers, and everyone gets a gold star at the end of the day.

I'm all for being warm and fuzzy, but towards those who have actually earned respect and friendship.

I'm even quite civil, polite, and helpful towards those who are working towards liberty and not concurrently damaging the cause.

Joe

Seconded Most Intently!

The majority are...and most will continue to be...looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, mercenaries and other assorted scoundrels and such...

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #281 on: July 07, 2008, 08:58:57 pm »

Quote from: kelteckiller
Good we have something in common!  We both enjoy life! All right!

No, I enjoy life. You enjoy a fantasy world that you have constructed in your own mind.

Wow. You got him good there.

You did not ask a question.  You made a statement regarding what I did and did not say.  Anyone who cares to read it can easily scroll back and do so.

And if they do, they will clearly see, I asked you directly. Twice.
Here.
And here.
That squiggly thing at the end of a sentence is a question mark.

You can pretend no questions were asked if that makes you feel better.
But so long as you're visiting the fantasy world you think Keltec inhabits, send us a postcard.

Quote from: MaineShark
Quote from: B.D. Ross
Let's try again: in your situation, was your pedestrian in public?
No.

Then what kind of pedestrian did you imagine?
Was he a random pedestrian walking in the private New Hampshire catacombs?

Quote from: MaineShark
"Law latin?"  That's laughable.  "Prima facie" is used in many situations, not just law.  And is part of my normal speech.

The phrase prima facie is fairly confined to law. And in the way you (slightly mis-)used it: "prima facie evidence". Like other latin phrases, it can be used outside that context. But not very frequently. Most would be hard-pressed to claim they use it regularly as part of their normal vocabulary, daily or even semi-weekly. Maybe not if you're studying ethics, philosophy or law. Otherwise, probably not. Because most of us here use English, et les anglophones sains d'esprit n'utilisent pas une langue étrangère quand l'anglais travaille bien.

Quote from: MaineShark
Quote from: B.D. Ross
But in actuality, in a courtroom, in front of a judge, that's the argument you make and you'd have a very, very good chance of being successful.
Which displays a laughable lack of understanding of the legal system.  Unrelated laws are used all the time to attack folks.

Again, it appears you're attempting to comment on something you're not competent in. (Special pleading: again, these are your competency rules.)

Instead, how about a question: Do you have any first-hand experience in defending yourself or others against criminal charges? Or perhaps you regularly attend pre-trial motion hearings? If none of these, upon what do you base your competence in this area?

Furthermore, what are these "unrelated laws [] used all the time to attack folks"?

And don't misinterpret me. I'm not saying laws cannot be abused. Rather, what are a few pairs of unrelated laws, used together, to attack people all the time?

(Note: question marks.)

Quote from: MaineShark
But I am competent to discuss these matters.

So you say, so you say.
See previous paragraph.

Quote from: MaineShark
You suggested that you were not competent to discuss the matter.  I agreed.

Can you point to where I suggested this?

I did say I was not licensed to practice in New Hampshire. But I said nothing of competence.

If you maintain that this is "suggesting" that I'm not competent to interpret a statute, again--applying the same standards that "[you] apply to all people, including [yourself]"--you would also not be competent. So again, I'm not sure why you're commenting.
Unless you don't actually follow the rules you make for yourself.

Now, we both agree, government licensure alone is irrelevant to the issue of competence.
So there would be no reason for you to even interpret my statement as referring to competence.
Which just tends to show, as usual, you were just hurling an insult.

Quote from: MaineShark
You are demonstrating a lack of ability.  I would suggest that you correct it.

Again, you may wish to follow your own rules.
If you are not competent to comment in this area, by what measure could you think I'm demonstrating this? (that's rhetorical.)
Could you please explain how my interpretation of the statute demonstrates a lack of ability?
You may need to actually read, interpret, and refer us to the statute to do this.

(Again, note the question mark.)

Quote from: MaineShark
Saying that one group (those involved in the liberty movement in NH) is "aware" of some issue does not imply that another group (competent legal professionals) may not have a higher understanding.

Yet, when I originally asked you for the attorneys, you did not respond.
Instead, you dodged the question and instead said most anyone actually involved in the liberty movement was aware.
It does not imply another group may not have a good understanding. No one said that.
But it tends to show you're avoiding the question.

In fact, I'm quite interested to know if another group of people has an understanding.
Specifically, the "competent legal professionals" you've mentioned before.
Who are the they?
What are their names?
Do you have this information?
Yes or no?

If you keep avoiding it, I'll assume the answer is no.

Quote from: MaineShark
I'm aware of the laws involved in libel.  And the forum posting guidelines.

Wonderful. I'm glad to hear you took my advice :)

Quote from: MaineShark
Anything I've written necessarily implies many things. You, however, imagine that all manner of un-stated and even contradictory things are implied, which are not.  That's your problem, not mine.

I work with what you give me.
I'm not sure what imagined, contradictory things you're speaking of.
Feel free to specifically point it out, so I know. I am often wrong.
I'd enjoy rereading and explaining anything you may have misread or I may have written incorrectly.
But now, just looks like you're grasping at straws.

Quote from: MaineShark
Quote from: B.D. Ross
You may wish to review my previous post where I mentioned "special pleading". Might elucidate what's going on. Take the standard you just announced here and apply it to nearly everything you've written above.
I apply the same standards to all people, including myself.  It's rather a hallmark of libertarianism.  Odd that you don't seem to know that...

Let's break down your response here to show how you've avoided addressing what I've said:

1. Maineshark applies the same standard to all people, including himself.
2. Applying the same standard to all people is a hallmark of libertarianism.
3. It is odd that B.D. Ross does not know that applying the same standard is a hallmark of libertarianism.

You claim #1. However, as I pointed in my previous post by quoting the exchange between you and Keltec, this is not always true. In such cases, you're holding yourself to a different standard for justifying claims, making inferences, and attributing statements to authors that they haven't written.
Yet, as usual, your response to what I've said is to immediately conclude the contrary--without any support for it.

#2 is a largely acceptable statement, but so broad that it could be ambiguous. #3 is irrelevant, as the issue is whether you are holding yourself to a different standard than you hold other people to. Not whether I believe #2 or not.

You seem like a fairly sharp guy. So I always just assumed you were being difficult. But now, I'm starting to suspect that you just might not know how to support what you're writing. With things like logic, reasoning, facts, or examples. Feel free to show us you can, if you can.

Quote from: MaineShark
When you claim that you are right, simply because you have made the statement, with no ability to support it, then you are setting yourself up as an authority on that subject, and your competence is a valid topic of discussion.

No idea what issue you're speaking of.
I am unsure of where I've claimed I've been right simply because I've made a statement with no ability to support it.
When I say something that hasn't been supported and I'm called on it, I don't try to weasle my way out of it. I rather try to foster understanding of what I've written. So please, if you could point me to specific examples so I know what you're talking about, I'd appreciate it.

My competence could be a valid topic of discussion. Never said it wasn't.
I'd be glad to talk about my experience and practice if you would like to.
But I don't think I've called my own competence into question by "not supporting my statements".
Competence only came up because--rather than addressing an issue--you thought you could make a clever, dismissive insult.
Again, I'd be more than happy to discuss anything you'd like.

Quote from: MaineShark
I'm not particularly interested in welcoming everyone.  I do not want the vast majority of the population to "join and contribute." 

I don't think this sentiment has been missed by anyone.

And I guess that's also where we differ.
I think it'd be great if everyone did genuinely want to join.
Looking at the SOI, seems to be the whole point.
But when people who do seem interested come to the site, you seem to be telling many of them:
"You don't 100% agree with me. Your beliefs about liberty are stupid and useless. Scram."
Which appears very unwelcoming.

Quote from: MaineShark
I want to welcome those who will work for liberty . . . .

Fantastic. You seem to be in the right place.
Logged

JAC

  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 75
  • Amor Fati.
    • Facebook
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #282 on: July 08, 2008, 01:12:52 am »

I thought Dave handled the situation fine.  That second guy maybe shouldn't have waved his hand in the cop's face, but he's understandably upset by the cop's actions.  On the whole, the open-carry demonstrations, I thought, were a great idea.  Nice job.
Logged

kelteckiller

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #283 on: July 08, 2008, 06:04:23 am »

But combatively arguing with him and exaggerating what he's said isn't going to turn him around.

There is no exaggeration.  That's what he said.  Or, has implied and repeatedly failed to address.

Like I said...EVERYONE (including myself) is hypocritical. some more than others....it's human nature

No, it's not.  Claiming that one's own failings are "just human nature" in order to avoid addressing those failings and growing has a fancy psychological name, but basically boils down to gross immaturity.

I was born free, I am free, and I will always be free.  My freedom has NEVER been restricted.  If you think this country and its situation is bad....you haven't seen bad.  I've seen bad...This place is the greatest country on the planet....is it perfect? No...but you can chase your Eutopian dreams to the depths...

Sounds like a slave defending slavery...  LOL

"Massa is nice.  Massa never mistreats me.  Massa only punishes me for my own good."

Joe

"Freedom can not be forced into existence, nor can it be won through painful struggle.  Freedom can not be bought or sold.  It has nothing to do with one's social status; one's profession is of no consequence.  In order for you to accept yourself as you are and live with your soul at peace, you must simply teach yourself to let it be, only then will you discover freedom."
Logged

NHArticleTen

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
  • Join The Ron Paul Write-In Revolution Today!
    • Adventures In Legal Land
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #284 on: July 08, 2008, 07:34:39 am »

But combatively arguing with him and exaggerating what he's said isn't going to turn him around.

There is no exaggeration.  That's what he said.  Or, has implied and repeatedly failed to address.

Like I said...EVERYONE (including myself) is hypocritical. some more than others....it's human nature

No, it's not.  Claiming that one's own failings are "just human nature" in order to avoid addressing those failings and growing has a fancy psychological name, but basically boils down to gross immaturity.

I was born free, I am free, and I will always be free.  My freedom has NEVER been restricted.  If you think this country and its situation is bad....you haven't seen bad.  I've seen bad...This place is the greatest country on the planet....is it perfect? No...but you can chase your Eutopian dreams to the depths...

Sounds like a slave defending slavery...  LOL

"Massa is nice.  Massa never mistreats me.  Massa only punishes me for my own good."

Joe

"Freedom can not be forced into existence, nor can it be won through painful struggle.  Freedom can not be bought or sold.  It has nothing to do with one's social status; one's profession is of no consequence.  In order for you to accept yourself as you are and live with your soul at peace, you must simply teach yourself to let it be, only then will you discover freedom."

I'll take the light work Joe...lol.

Dear Killer,
"FREEDOM" exists with each and every Individual Sovereign Human Being...
Since it already exists...it doesn't need to be forced into existence...or "won"...we all already have it...

Acknowledging your own and others...and respecting your own and others...and demanding your own and others...

Is another story altogether...

You said...
Quote
In order for you to accept yourself as you are and live with your soul at peace, you must simply teach yourself to let it be, only then will you discover freedom

Let's take a brief look at that...

Those exact words could be said by...or to...Hitler or Bush for example...and they probably do accept their delusions of being the "decider" and might very well have erroneously convinced themselves to just "accept", "live", and "simply teach themselves to just...let it be" their horrific terrifying global tyranny...

and...

I sincerely doubt that you will personally come to my doorstep to attempt to interfere, disrupt, or deny my freedom...
But I bet you think it's just fine and dandy to "employ" "direct" and "pay" others to perpetually perpetrate aggression/force/fraud on behalf of you and your minions of delusional looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

Eventually...you'll turn from your erroneous ways...or be repelled, destroyed, and eliminated...or just starve to death when your minions don't return with any loot or booty...

Maybe it won't happen tomorrow...maybe it will happen to your looter children...or looter grandchildren...

But someday it will happen...as history has shown and proven...time and time again...





www.campaignforliberty.com

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 ... 26   Go Up