Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 ... 26   Go Down

Author Topic: open carry protests  (Read 106464 times)

kelteckiller

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #285 on: July 08, 2008, 11:22:17 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 Beings...
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



Wow...did you take that completely out of context!

I take this to say.  Freedom is a state of mind. 

I do not take money from other people and am not those things you "think" that I am.  My children will always be free as long as their children.  You are not in the position to say who will be "repelled, destroyed, or eliminated"...even though we will ALL, without any argument, be dead one day...so I guess in a sense you are right, but then again...SO WILL YOU
Logged

kelteckiller

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #286 on: July 08, 2008, 11:23:31 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 Beings...
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



oh and that quote is from a Buddhist monk...they are renowned for being oppressive...
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #287 on: July 08, 2008, 11:27:30 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 Beings...
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



oh and that quote is from a Buddhist monk...they are renowned for being oppressive...

But reknowned for being oppressed and not fighting back.
I think that's the mindset he was viewing it through.
Maybe he'll opine.

I was wondering where the quote came from :)
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #288 on: July 08, 2008, 12:00:35 pm »

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.

And yet another rather pathetic straw man.

I never said that you have never asked any questions.  I was referring to a specific case, which was not a question.  You keep trying to build these straw men, but they seem to be burning down around you...

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.

English is a bastard language, which includes words and phrases in common use from many other languages.  Living relatively-near Quebec, we even use some French in our speech, around here.  C'est la vie.

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?

Well, as a matter of fact, yes, I have defended myself, both with and without counsel as assistance.  Even picked a jury.  That was quite the interesting time - judges tend to be quite annoyed when defendants insist on actually participating, instead of sitting idly at the table.  Given the gross level of corruption of the police and prosecutors, and the sheer amount of critical evidence that they willfully destroyed, tampered with, or fabricated, coupled with the fact that I've never taken a single breath inside a prison, would tend to indicate that I have a rather high level of competence.

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?

Laws are abuse.  They are not abused.

And, again, I would suggest doing some research.

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.

Yes, because you were just mentioning that you were not licensed in NH, just for the sake of inserting a random factoid about yourself?

I'll bet you also aren't a little green man from Mars.  There's an extremely good chance that you are not the Dalai Lama, as well.  Odds are very good that you are not 23 feet tall.  Why didn't you insert any other random lists of things which you are not?

The only possible reasons you would mention something specific like not being licensed in NH would be that you felt it related to your competence in these discussions.

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.

We've already been over this, and I don't feel like repeating it.  Use the little links at the end of each page of text, which allow you to switch from page to page.

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.

I didn't dodge any question.  Another straw man.  The two discussions ("attorneys" and "those in the liberty movement") were two separate discussions.

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.

I really could care less what you assume.  Do some research.  I'm sure you could find some attorneys to consult, if you liked, just for one group.

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 :)

What advice is that, precisely?

I work with what you give me.

No, you work with what you imagine that I say, rather than what I actually say.  Reading comprehension...

I'm not sure what imagined, contradictory things you're speaking of.
Feel free to specifically point it out, so I know.

We were just discussing some of them.  Or are you going to claim memory issues, now?

I am often wrong.

Well, we can most assuredly agree on that.
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 #289 on: July 08, 2008, 12:00:59 pm »

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.

Your unsupported and insuperable claims don't magically make that so.

#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.

Ah, but it rather is important what you believe.  As I've said before, I have not noticed many posts of yours which are anything but trolls, full of straw men and other nonsense.  If you are not aware of, or do not believe in, things which are extremely critical to libertarian thought, then it seems more and more likely that you are no sort of libertarian, at all.

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.

Once you manage to address the issues at hand with no straw men, then we can talk about ability.

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.

Let's see... every single claim regarding these statutes... all of your straw men... need we go on?

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.

This is not the "NH is underpopulated, so let's convince folks to move here" project.

The goal is to convince liberty-minded people to move.  Not punks who think it's okay to point a gun at your neighbor's head if his dog barks, and other such individuals.

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 #290 on: July 08, 2008, 12:09:03 pm »

"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."

Rob did a pretty good number on this.

I'll add a little.

Hitler did not kill tens of millions.  Even among the population of Germany, those who directly carried-out the genocides were a small number.  Such is usually the case with any similar action.  Those who just "accepted" the situation easily outnumbered those who had any direct hand in it.

Bending over whenever the government comes calling is not freedom, just because they let you choose which chair you will bend over.

oh and that quote is from a Buddhist monk...they are renowned for being oppressive...

They are, however, renowned for standing back and letting themselves and others be oppressed, rather than doing anything meaningful to oppose systems of oppression.

I was wondering where the quote came from :)

Really?  Why?  That was pretty obviously of Buddhist origin.  One would imagine that anyone who goes as far out of his way to imply a high level of "education" as yourself would have studied enough philosophy to recognize such a blatantly-Buddhist statement as that one.  Curious...

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 #291 on: July 08, 2008, 12:10:23 pm »

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.

Your unsupported and insuperable claims don't magically make that so.

#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.

Ah, but it rather is important what you believe.  As I've said before, I have not noticed many posts of yours which are anything but trolls, full of straw men and other nonsense.  If you are not aware of, or do not believe in, things which are extremely critical to libertarian thought, then it seems more and more likely that you are no sort of libertarian, at all.

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.

Once you manage to address the issues at hand with no straw men, then we can talk about ability.

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.

Let's see... every single claim regarding these statutes... all of your straw men... need we go on?

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.

This is not the "NH is underpopulated, so let's convince folks to move here" project.

The goal is to convince liberty-minded people to move.  Not punks who think it's okay to point a gun at your neighbor's head if his dog barks, and other such individuals.

Joe

We've gone from "bureaucrats, jackboots, etc" being the phrase of the day to "straw man"... Quippy quipper quippington
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801

I never said that you have never asked any questions.

And I never said that you said that I never asked any questions. (Whew. :p)
I asked questions. You said I didn't.
Reality hurts.

Well, as a matter of fact, yes, I have defended myself . . . coupled with the fact that I've never taken a single breath inside a prison, would tend to indicate that I have a rather high level of competence.

Ah, that's great! :D Let us officially dub thee "competent". Now, let's answer the complete question: what are a few pairs of unrelated laws used to attack people all the time?

Yes, because you were just mentioning that you were not licensed in NH, just for the sake of inserting a random factoid about yourself?
...
The only possible reasons you would mention something specific like not being licensed in NH would be that you felt it related to your competence in these discussions.

Only possible reason? For telling me to "go read" all the time, you might wanna try it. Go look at what I explicitly wrote. All of it.

If you look through a number of legal books, treatises, periodicals, etc. you will nearly always see a (much longer) disclaimer like that. It's a warning to people. To let them know the author isn't writing as their personal attorney, and that no attorney-client relationship is formed, and that advice shouldn't be relied on. Honestly, it's more an insurance reason than anything else. Sounds like a possible reason to me; and the the correct one.

I didn't dodge any question. Another straw man. The two discussions ("attorneys" and "those in the liberty movement") were two separate discussions.

Do you know what a straw man argument is?
You've used it quite a few times now.
But not once correctly.

I really could care less what you assume.  Do some research.  I'm sure you could find some attorneys to consult, if you liked, just for one group.

No, no, no. You misunderstand.
I don't just want "some attorneys to consult". Not just any 'ole attorneys.

Who are a few of the attorneys you previously said have read the particular statute?

Quote from: B.D. Ross
Wonderful. I'm glad to hear you took my advice :)

What advice is that, precisely?

That you further research the law of libel. To claim you're aware of those laws, you would've had to look into it a bit more, since there was a gap in your understanding. Since you're now aware, you must've looked into it some more.

We were just discussing some of them. Or are you going to claim memory issues, now?

Well, I don't recall "we" discussing them.
So if you're not being ambiguous on purpose, my memory just might be deficient!

If yours isn't deficient, could you please point out where these supposed contradictory statements are?
Again, I'd be more than happy to explain anything that wasn't clear.

Quote from: B.D. Ross
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.

Your unsupported and insuperable claims don't magically make that so.

Quote from: B.D. Ross
#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.

Ah, but it rather is important what you believe.  As I've said before, I have not noticed many posts of yours which are anything but trolls, full of straw men and other nonsense.  If you are not aware of, or do not believe in, things which are extremely critical to libertarian thought, then it seems more and more likely that you are no sort of libertarian, at all.

What?! No. Just... no.
(hangs head in shame... I have failed to reach theeese keeeds.)
What I believe (about libertarianism) is not relevant to telling us whether you apply a differing standard by which you're treating other posters.
Even if, my personal beliefs would not alone tell anyone whether my posts are trolls or strawmen.
I could believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or something equally crazy).
But I could still look at the ocean, and exclaim, "Oh. It looks wet."
And I'd be correct.
But neither of those facts tells us anything--not even remotely--about how you're treating other people when you communciate with them.

Contrarily, as we like to hold people to a uniform standard, would it also be rather important what you believe in? You seem to believe my posts are trolls and full of straw men. As the thread grows in size, the former looks more-and-more tenable. But the latter, I think, I've addressed that a few times already in this post. I don't think I've exaggerated any of your opinions so-far as to distort them beyond your actual claims. But if you can point it out (and convincingly tell me why you think it's not fair), I'll certainly own up to it.

Hmm, maybe I'm not a libertarian. Maybe I'm a communist. --Or a vampire!
Still wouldn't change the fact that you're holding other posters to a different standard than you're holding yourself to.
When you say that you don't.

And, hey, look Ma', I can argue fallaciously too! If you're unwelcoming to the liberty-minded people who visit this web site, "you are no sort of libertarian at all."

--Sounds valid and convincing, doesn't it?

Quote from: B.D. Ross
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.

Once you manage to address the issues at hand with no straw men, then we can talk about ability.

...

Let's see... every single claim regarding these statutes... all of your straw men... need we go on?

...

This is not the "NH is underpopulated, so let's convince folks to move here" project.

The goal is to convince liberty-minded people to move.  Not punks who think it's okay to point a gun at your neighbor's head if his dog barks, and other such individuals.

You really have no idea what a straw man argument is, do you?
Read the third-to-last line above. That's an example of one.
You inappropriately expanded what I wrote ("we should welcome liberty-minded people") to a "We should convince folks to move to NH just because it's underpopulated". That's a no-no.

And that pointing-a-gun-at-your-neighbors head-if-his-dog-barks thing?
You keep pulling that out of your hat.
But I don't think anyone has actually, ever said it.
Well, except when you first fabricated it.

Really?  Why?  That was pretty obviously of Buddhist origin.  One would imagine that anyone who goes as far out of his way to imply a high level of "education" as yourself would have studied enough philosophy to recognize such a blatantly-Buddhist statement as that one.  Curious...

Why? Because I did not know, and I wanted to. Is there anything "obviously" and "blatantly" Buddhist about it that you can point out? Could've just as well been some translated text from an Enlightenment author.

--AND before it slips my mind, where in the world was that pedestrian so that he wouldn't have been in public?

Save that I'm wrong from time-to-time, you're right, there's little common ground. Most of the content above is just bickering (though I'm really hoping you realize about the lack of support in your posts). This thread could continue in perpetuity. We're hardly addressing the substantive issues any more, so it's fast becoming a waste (though, amusing use) of time. Unless you can address any of the original issues I identified (identify the unrelated laws, attorneys, etc.), I'll try really hard to ignore whatever illogical non-response you can cobble together. Unless I see something particularly juicy and just can't resist. But that's not a goal you should aspire to!
Logged

jrod

  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 66
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #293 on: July 08, 2008, 04:33:30 pm »

;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"...


Yes, you do. This is why the LP can't elect anything beyond school board, and this is why I'm skeptical of hauling my life to New Hampshire. If you run around acting self righteous and arrogant, then you win no allies in the public sphere. Whether you like the system or not, you can't do anything about it so long as it has the legitimacy of the majority.
Logged

margomaps

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
  • I'm a llama!
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #294 on: July 08, 2008, 06:04:41 pm »

Yes, you do. This is why the LP can't elect anything beyond school board, and this is why I'm skeptical of hauling my life to New Hampshire. If you run around acting self righteous and arrogant, then you win no allies in the public sphere. Whether you like the system or not, you can't do anything about it so long as it has the legitimacy of the majority.

For the one thousand, three hundred, seventy fourth time (but maybe only the 4th time in this thread)...the opinions expressed by Joe, Powerchuter, or any individual you might come across on these forums are just that: opinions of individuals on the forums.  AKA, opinions of a very tiny percentage of FSPers.  AKA, not necessarily representative of the opinions of anyone except the persons expressing their opinions; and certainly not the "opinion of the FSP" -- whatever that is.

Suppose you were thinking about going to a concert given by your favorite musician, and about 20,000 people were expected to attend.  If you found out that two kids from high school that you didn't get along with were going, would you sit home and fret about it, and miss the concert of your life?

Furthermore, while your skepticism of the FSP vis-a-vis political failures of the LP is understandable, it's wrong.  There is already an FSPer in the NH house of representatives, there are a bunch more running this fall, and I know of at least two FSPers who have been or currently are selectmen in their towns.  Then you have effective pro-liberty organizations that were founded by or are heavily supported by free staters, like the NH Liberty Alliance.  The FSP -- with only a couple hundred people having made the move to NH -- already has far more political success (especially per capita) than the LP ever has, or possibly ever will.  And yes, there are plenty of free staters who want nothing to do with the political process, but this does not impede the actions of those free staters who are trying to use the political process to gain freedom.
Logged

Porcupine The Godful Heathen

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 943
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #295 on: July 08, 2008, 06:58:40 pm »

For the one thousand, three hundred, seventy fourth time (but maybe only the 4th time in this thread)...the opinions expressed by Joe, Powerchuter, or any individual you might come across on these forums are just that: opinions of individuals on the forums.  AKA, opinions of a very tiny percentage of FSPers.  AKA, not necessarily representative of the opinions of anyone except the persons expressing their opinions; and certainly not the "opinion of the FSP" -- whatever that is.

Suppose you were thinking about going to a concert given by your favorite musician, and about 20,000 people were expected to attend.  If you found out that two kids from high school that you didn't get along with were going, would you sit home and fret about it, and miss the concert of your life?

Furthermore, while your skepticism of the FSP vis-a-vis political failures of the LP is understandable, it's wrong.  There is already an FSPer in the NH house of representatives, there are a bunch more running this fall, and I know of at least two FSPers who have been or currently are selectmen in their towns.  Then you have effective pro-liberty organizations that were founded by or are heavily supported by free staters, like the NH Liberty Alliance.  The FSP -- with only a couple hundred people having made the move to NH -- already has far more political success (especially per capita) than the LP ever has, or possibly ever will.  And yes, there are plenty of free staters who want nothing to do with the political process, but this does not impede the actions of those free staters who are trying to use the political process to gain freedom.

THANK YOU!!!
Logged
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods." - Einstein

kelteckiller

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #296 on: July 08, 2008, 07:44:21 pm »

Yes, you do. This is why the LP can't elect anything beyond school board, and this is why I'm skeptical of hauling my life to New Hampshire. If you run around acting self righteous and arrogant, then you win no allies in the public sphere. Whether you like the system or not, you can't do anything about it so long as it has the legitimacy of the majority.

For the one thousand, three hundred, seventy fourth time (but maybe only the 4th time in this thread)...the opinions expressed by Joe, Powerchuter, or any individual you might come across on these forums are just that: opinions of individuals on the forums.  AKA, opinions of a very tiny percentage of FSPers.  AKA, not necessarily representative of the opinions of anyone except the persons expressing their opinions; and certainly not the "opinion of the FSP" -- whatever that is.

Suppose you were thinking about going to a concert given by your favorite musician, and about 20,000 people were expected to attend.  If you found out that two kids from high school that you didn't get along with were going, would you sit home and fret about it, and miss the concert of your life?

Furthermore, while your skepticism of the FSP vis-a-vis political failures of the LP is understandable, it's wrong.  There is already an FSPer in the NH house of representatives, there are a bunch more running this fall, and I know of at least two FSPers who have been or currently are selectmen in their towns.  Then you have effective pro-liberty organizations that were founded by or are heavily supported by free staters, like the NH Liberty Alliance.  The FSP -- with only a couple hundred people having made the move to NH -- already has far more political success (especially per capita) than the LP ever has, or possibly ever will.  And yes, there are plenty of free staters who want nothing to do with the political process, but this does not impede the actions of those free staters who are trying to use the political process to gain freedom.

I TRULY think that is GREAT!  I do not consider myself a "libertarian" or a democrat or republican for that matter...I fall somewhere in between all of those.  I like to think I lean a little more towards the libertarian side, but don't take the title.  I am glad to hear that you have reps at the house.  In MY opinion, that is the way to "fight".  The other way is messy...right or wrong...it's messy.

I have to say, your best speaker on your behalf...and I am not even sure he is apart of your group, but am assuming (yes maineshark and parachuter, I know I shouldn't assume) he is apart of the FSP, is Gardner Goldsmith.  That man speaks VERY intelligently of the constitution and seems to be of similar ilk.

Good to hear there are reasonable people in the group...BD and yourself and a few others that i have seen...

Good on ya!
Logged

sj

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3554
    • The Ridley Report
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #297 on: July 08, 2008, 08:25:25 pm »

For the one thousand, three hundred, seventy fourth time (but maybe only the 4th time in this thread)...the opinions expressed by Joe, Powerchuter, or any individual you might come across on these forums are just that: opinions of individuals on the forums.  AKA, opinions of a very tiny percentage of FSPers.  AKA, not necessarily representative of the opinions of anyone except the persons expressing their opinions; and certainly not the "opinion of the FSP" -- whatever that is.

Suppose you were thinking about going to a concert given by your favorite musician, and about 20,000 people were expected to attend.  If you found out that two kids from high school that you didn't get along with were going, would you sit home and fret about it, and miss the concert of your life?

Furthermore, while your skepticism of the FSP vis-a-vis political failures of the LP is understandable, it's wrong.  There is already an FSPer in the NH house of representatives, there are a bunch more running this fall, and I know of at least two FSPers who have been or currently are selectmen in their towns.  Then you have effective pro-liberty organizations that were founded by or are heavily supported by free staters, like the NH Liberty Alliance.  The FSP -- with only a couple hundred people having made the move to NH -- already has far more political success (especially per capita) than the LP ever has, or possibly ever will.  And yes, there are plenty of free staters who want nothing to do with the political process, but this does not impede the actions of those free staters who are trying to use the political process to gain freedom.

THANK YOU!!!

^This
Logged
Moved?  Email Moved@FreeStateProject.org to let them know where you landed, and to get your mover number.

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #298 on: July 09, 2008, 09:28:12 am »

Market activism can be 'messy', but is more likely a better path to freedom in that it doesn't need majority opinion to work.
Logged

margomaps

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
  • I'm a llama!
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #299 on: July 09, 2008, 10:00:51 am »

Market activism can be 'messy', but is more likely a better path to freedom in that it doesn't need majority opinion to work.

I'm in favor of both market-based and political-based activism.  I'm glad both are going on in NH.  "Something for everyone!"

The skeptic of market activism (if we're talking about the same term) will point out that the majority can still be effective in impeding market activism, simply by passing new laws that turn certain market activists into criminals.  The effectiveness of market activists is greatly diminished when they're behind bars, or when their property is seized.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 ... 26   Go Up