Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[John Edward Mercier]

No. You required and demanded that as a resident of NH, I come to the aid of another...

Again. How can you require and demand something in a voluntary nature?

[rossby]

That's silliness. Read what I wrote: "Sometimes threats are just threats. Rarely is there ever really a gun."

Um, I did read what you wrote.  There is always a gun.  Or some other means of making a credible threat.

You're assuming there's always a gun. Because they're telling you there is one. I've said that's questionable, but people still fear it. And that's how the compliance system works.

I was talking about the system's method of compliance and how many people continually cave into the threat of punishment without there being anything credible to back it up. I'm not sure of the "logical extension" you're trying to make between that and a person raping another person by actually putting a gun to the victim's head. In one, compliance is achieved by threatening distant, future punishment. In the other, compliance is achieved by actually physically threatening the victim with immediate bodily harm. It's not really "logical [to] extend" what I've said by explicitly introducing a gun, when I've said the existence of the gun is what's actually in question. Unless you're trying to construct some self-validating argument. If you can further explain what you mean, I wouldn't mind hearing it.

Anyway, all cops are malicious.  All of them.  It's not possible to go around, non-maliciously attacking people who've done no harm to you or any other person.  That is malicious behavior.  There are varying levels of maliciousness from cop to cop, but all of them are malicious. (emphasis added)

Again, your demonstrating my point. The slippery slope is to continually denigrate and further falsely attribute certain motives to a specific class of people. And I mean the process by which posters' generalizations allow this to happen. Continue down the path, and you will see every action, regardless of its true intent, as sinister. Here, you seem to be suggesting that all cops go around attacking people. But upon what do you base this? If we were to enumerate every cop and question them, how likely is it that that would be true?

How many cops do you know and interact with? I find, in reality, most cops aren't terribly malicious. Sure over time, the job often brings arrogance and a sense of entitlementment. And I've heard reasons for cops becoming cops for everything from "I want to protect people" to "Chicks dig uniforms" to "I get to carry a gun" to "I want to beat up gays and blacks". But it's not every cop. Lot of them are stuck behind desks. They move paper. And all cops do not "go around maliciously attacking people." Some of them despise the system. Some of them just want a paycheck. Some of them really, truly don't care. Furthermore, not everyone a cop may come across is someone who's done no harm to anyone. If someone attacks a cop without provocation, the cop can certainly defend himself. You've assumed every non-cop being attacked is innocent as an angel. And as I was said previously in the thread--which was the whole point--it's unlawful for a cop to "maliciously attack you" just because he feels like it. If you don't kill the cop while protecting your own life, there are still legal remedies for his unlawful behavior. (And that most people don't hold cops to the law.) Saying all cops are malicious is inaccurate, but makes it a whole lot easier to dislike them as a group of people.

[MaineShark]

You're assuming there's always a gun. Because they're telling you there is one. I've said that's questionable, but people still fear it. And that's how the compliance system works.

The credible threat of force is the same as force.

I was talking about the system's method of compliance and how many people continually cave into the threat of punishment without there being anything credible to back it up. I'm not sure of the "logical extension" you're trying to make between that and a person raping another person by actually putting a gun to the victim's head. In one, compliance is achieved by threatening distant, future punishment. In the other, compliance is achieved by actually physically threatening the victim with immediate bodily harm. It's not really "logical [to] extend" what I've said by explicitly introducing a gun, when I've said the existence of the gun is what's actually in question. Unless you're trying to construct some self-validating argument. If you can further explain what you mean, I wouldn't mind hearing it.

How many unarmed cops are you aware of?

The gun is right there, right then.  Oh, maybe they wait a few days, but we're not talking anything distant.  And if you try actually just ignoring them, you'll find that they don't even wait a few days to attack.

Again, your demonstrating my point. The slippery slope is to continually denigrate and further falsely attribute certain motives to a specific class of people. And I mean the process by which posters' generalizations allow this to happen. Continue down the path, and you will see every action, regardless of its true intent, as sinister.

No, I won't.  Only the ones that actual involve initiation of force/fraud.  And absolutely none beyond that: no action which does not involve initiation of force or fraud is ever morally wrong.  Some may be aesthetically displeasing to me (such as folks failing at personal hygiene), but there is no circumstance under which I would ever consider a non-aggressive act to be wrong or "sinister."

Here, you seem to be suggesting that all cops go around attacking people. But upon what do you base this? If we were to enumerate every cop and question them, how likely is it that that would be true?

The likelihood would be 100%.  It's not possible to be a cop, and not go around attacking people.  Even one with a desk job is assisting the others, and is culpable for the actions he participates in.

How many cops do you know and interact with? I find, in reality, most cops aren't terribly malicious. Sure over time, the job often brings arrogance and a sense of entitlementment. And I've heard reasons for cops becoming cops for everything from "I want to protect people" to "Chicks dig uniforms" to "I get to carry a gun" to "I want to beat up gays and blacks". But it's not every cop.

I could care less what they claim for reasons.  I care what they do.  And what they do, is attack people.

And all cops do not "go around maliciously attacking people." Some of them despise the system. Some of them just want a paycheck.

Really?  And where do you suppose that they get that paycheck?

If someone attacks a cop without provocation, the cop can certainly defend himself.

By engaging in armed robbery in order to obtain his "paycheck," every cop has engaged in "provocation."

You've assumed every non-cop being attacked is innocent as an angel.

No.  Merely that there exist no cops who have not at some point attacked someone who was doing no harm.  They can bring in a thousand "bad guys," and it still doesn't excuse attacking even one "good guy."

And as I was said previously in the thread--which was the whole point--it's unlawful for a cop to "maliciously attack you" just because he feels like it. If you don't kill the cop while protecting your own life, there are still legal remedies for his unlawful behavior. (And that most people don't hold cops to the law.) Saying all cops are malicious is inaccurate, but makes it a whole lot easier to dislike them as a group of people.

Really?  So if I'm driving along and I see those blue lights, I can just ignore them?  And when the cop runs me off the road, I can treat him as having attempted to murder me, and shoot him in self-defense, and the "law" will back me up?

Pardon me while I go guffaw at that nonsense.

No, a cop can attack me, without me having harmed anyone, threaten my life, even use violence against me, and if I defend myself, I'll be treated as the "bad guy."

Joe

[rossby]

Bah. You're just talking nonsense. Totally ignoring what I've said. Defining things the way you'd prefer them to be. Come out and play in the real world, Joe.

[MaineShark]

Bah. You're just talking nonsense. Totally ignoring what I've said. Defining things the way you'd prefer them to be. Come out and play in the real world, Joe.

I'm in the real world.  You're living in a little fantasy land that you've constructed so you can pretend that you're not part of a totalitarian system.

In the real world, having a bit of tin pinned to your shirt doesn't make threatening people who've not harmed you or anyone else into acceptable behavior.  In reality, little bits of metal don't have magical powers like that.

Magical powers only exist in fantasy worlds.

Joe

[rossby]

I'm in the real world.

Continue enjoying your own carefully constructed fantasy world too.

[MaineShark]

I'm in the real world.

Continue enjoying your own carefully constructed fantasy world too.

I'm living in the real world.  Believe me, when you live in reality, it's quite easy to see who is walking around with their eyes covered and their ears plugged.

Hey, I think they made a movie about that.

Joe

[NHArticleTen]

No. You required and demanded that as a resident of NH, I come to the aid of another...

Again. How can you require and demand something in a voluntary nature?

The original post was...

The whole state should have come to the Brown's aid...
Lest what one allows to be perpetrated against thine neighbor...shall then therefore be allowed to be perpetrated against thine own self...

and I did alter the original quote to clarify my usage of the word "state"...
here is the updated version...

The whole state "body", consisting of each and every Individual Sovereign Human Being, should have come to the Brown's aid...
Lest what one allows to be perpetrated against thine neighbor...shall then therefore be allowed to be perpetrated against thine own self...

So you can plainly see that I did not state...originally..."require" and "demand"...
However, upon further requests for clarification and elaboration upon the subject matter at hand...

The whole point was...and is...and continues to be...
Each and Every Individual Sovereign Human Being "should"(see, there is the word I used in the original quote...SHOULD...as in...WE will remember that you stood idly by while we were victimized by the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries and we will hold to the premise that your silence and inactivity in repelling, destroying, and eliminating them...not for our sake...but for your own...)

Let's start that again...
Each and Every Individual Sovereign Human Being "should" act in his or her best interests and consider greatly the gravity and weight of the victimization of his or her neighbors...and just how long it will be before the perpetrators finish with your neighbor...and get around to you and yours...and, considering same said...should endeavor to repel, destroy, and eliminate all looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries at the earliest opportunity so as to effect the least victimization of ANYONE, ANYWHERE, AT ANY TIME...

So...
I say again(and we may very well act independently but in concert by our choice of action)...
Let each and every Individual Sovereign Human Being act on his or her own, but not shy away from the shoulders of like-minded individuals, to march shoulder to shoulder, weapons at the ready...to drive the perpetrators to the abyss...and then to repel, destroy, eliminate, and cast their wretched existences into the chasm...

I am "requiring" and "demanding" that everyone leave me and mine completely alone...

I am not, however, demanding that anyone else come to my aid...

Although, in all likelihood...they very well should...

There's that word again...SHOULD...

As in...regards to my previous assertion...

Lest what one allows to be perpetrated against thine neighbor...shall then therefore be allowed to be perpetrated against thine own self...

Do you not "get that"...
Do you not "get" that...when the jackboots storm my house and you sit in yours uninterested in your neighbor's condition and plight...
Tomorrow we'll just sit out on the front porch while they drag you out the door while showing your family the proper usage of some extra heavy duty condoms and body bags...

www.nakednews.com

[rossby]

I'm in the real world.

Continue enjoying your own carefully constructed fantasy world too.

I'm living in the real world. Believe me, when you live in reality, it's quite easy to see who is walking around with their eyes covered and their ears plugged.

Hey, I think they made a movie about that.

Joe

You very frequently assert that. While simultaneously telling other people they live in fantasy worlds. Truly, does nothing about that strike you as peculiar?

[MaineShark]

You very frequently assert that. While simultaneously telling other people they live in fantasy worlds. Truly, does nothing about that strike you as peculiar?

No.  That's why logic and rational thought are nice.  I enjoy them greatly.  My conclusions about the world are based upon observation of what really is.  I don't conclude that the world is the way I imagine it to be, then ignore anything that conflicts with my preconceptions.

This is all very simple logic, here.  Yet you cannot seem to address it.  You hit that cognitive dissonance, and retreat to your own fantasy about how the cops are these magical elves, or something similarly nonsensical.

Cops use force to obtain compliance with their dictates, or the dictates of their masters.  That's reality.  Anyone supporting the use of initiated force (as in the case of demanding that barking dogs be outlawed) is nothing but a petty tyrant, hiring thugs to do his bidding.  That's reality.  If you imagine you can poke some hole in the logic, feel free to try.  But whining that it doesn't fit your fantastical worldview does not in any way detract from its legitimacy.

If your worldview and reality don't coincide, then you're the one who has the problem.

Joe

[rossby]

You very frequently assert that. While simultaneously telling other people they live in fantasy worlds. Truly, does nothing about that strike you as peculiar?

No.  That's why logic and rational thought are nice.  I enjoy them greatly.  My conclusions about the world are based upon observation of what really is.  I don't conclude that the world is the way I imagine it to be, then ignore anything that conflicts with my preconceptions.

In the face of overwhelming evidence, the human capacity for self-delusion and self-denial knows no bounds. I'll now be excusing myself from this thread.

[MaineShark]

In the face of overwhelming evidence, the human capacity for self-delusion and self-denial knows no bounds. I'll now be excusing myself from this thread.

Cognitive dissonance getting too much for you, eh?

Joe

[kelteckiller]

You're assuming there's always a gun. Because they're telling you there is one. I've said that's questionable, but people still fear it. And that's how the compliance system works.

The credible threat of force is the same as force.

I was talking about the system's method of compliance and how many people continually cave into the threat of punishment without there being anything credible to back it up. I'm not sure of the "logical extension" you're trying to make between that and a person raping another person by actually putting a gun to the victim's head. In one, compliance is achieved by threatening distant, future punishment. In the other, compliance is achieved by actually physically threatening the victim with immediate bodily harm. It's not really "logical [to] extend" what I've said by explicitly introducing a gun, when I've said the existence of the gun is what's actually in question. Unless you're trying to construct some self-validating argument. If you can further explain what you mean, I wouldn't mind hearing it.

How many unarmed cops are you aware of?

The gun is right there, right then.  Oh, maybe they wait a few days, but we're not talking anything distant.  And if you try actually just ignoring them, you'll find that they don't even wait a few days to attack.

Again, your demonstrating my point. The slippery slope is to continually denigrate and further falsely attribute certain motives to a specific class of people. And I mean the process by which posters' generalizations allow this to happen. Continue down the path, and you will see every action, regardless of its true intent, as sinister.

No, I won't.  Only the ones that actual involve initiation of force/fraud.  And absolutely none beyond that: no action which does not involve initiation of force or fraud is ever morally wrong.  Some may be aesthetically displeasing to me (such as folks failing at personal hygiene), but there is no circumstance under which I would ever consider a non-aggressive act to be wrong or "sinister."

Here, you seem to be suggesting that all cops go around attacking people. But upon what do you base this? If we were to enumerate every cop and question them, how likely is it that that would be true?

The likelihood would be 100%.  It's not possible to be a cop, and not go around attacking people.  Even one with a desk job is assisting the others, and is culpable for the actions he participates in.

How many cops do you know and interact with? I find, in reality, most cops aren't terribly malicious. Sure over time, the job often brings arrogance and a sense of entitlementment. And I've heard reasons for cops becoming cops for everything from "I want to protect people" to "Chicks dig uniforms" to "I get to carry a gun" to "I want to beat up gays and blacks". But it's not every cop.

I could care less what they claim for reasons.  I care what they do.  And what they do, is attack people.

And all cops do not "go around maliciously attacking people." Some of them despise the system. Some of them just want a paycheck.

Really?  And where do you suppose that they get that paycheck?

If someone attacks a cop without provocation, the cop can certainly defend himself.

By engaging in armed robbery in order to obtain his "paycheck," every cop has engaged in "provocation."

You've assumed every non-cop being attacked is innocent as an angel.

No.  Merely that there exist no cops who have not at some point attacked someone who was doing no harm.  They can bring in a thousand "bad guys," and it still doesn't excuse attacking even one "good guy."

And as I was said previously in the thread--which was the whole point--it's unlawful for a cop to "maliciously attack you" just because he feels like it. If you don't kill the cop while protecting your own life, there are still legal remedies for his unlawful behavior. (And that most people don't hold cops to the law.) Saying all cops are malicious is inaccurate, but makes it a whole lot easier to dislike them as a group of people.

Really?  So if I'm driving along and I see those blue lights, I can just ignore them?  And when the cop runs me off the road, I can treat him as having attempted to murder me, and shoot him in self-defense, and the "law" will back me up?

Pardon me while I go guffaw at that nonsense.

No, a cop can attack me, without me having harmed anyone, threaten my life, even use violence against me, and if I defend myself, I'll be treated as the "bad guy."

Joe

Some Marine Patrol do NOT carry guns...

[NHArticleTen]

In the face of overwhelming evidence, the human capacity for self-delusion and self-denial knows no bounds. I'll now be excusing myself from this thread.

Cognitive dissonance getting too much for you, eh?

Joe

this

[MaineShark]

Some Marine Patrol do NOT carry guns...

Even if that were true, it wouldn't make them unarmed.  See, they have that radio, and on the other end are more gun-toting jackboots, who are happy to show up with their guns.

Joe