You're a one trick pony.
Deliberately misunderstand.
Create a fallacious argument.
Repeatedly demand answers to your cooked up argument.
Eat it.
-
ICMag with help from Phlizon, Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest for Christmas! You can check it here. Prizes are: full spectrum led light, seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Luigi Mangione
- Thread starter Zeez
- Start date
You're a one trick pony.
Deliberately misunderstand.
Create a fallacious argument.
Repeatedly demand answers to your cooked up argument.
Eat it.
Not true.
It's like Caesar Millan says, People need rules, boundaries and limitations.
If you want a better explanation, read the constitution.
Captain Red Eye
Active member
That's not an argument. Does nothing to disprove my points.
Besides. I already know the answers you won't admit to.
You are refusing to answer, because to do so will prove that you are okay with somebody using violence against disinterested but otherwise peaceful people for not wanting to pay for your ideas.
If I'm a one trick pony point out with a non-contradicting argument where my premise is wrong?
Also, I'm asking for you to admit the answers. If you don't answer I'm not going to use violence on you.
You are the one DEMANDING other people pay for your ideas, while out of the other side of your mouth lamely saying, "I'm not advocating violence".
Own it.
Hiddenjems
Well-known member
What is the backbone behind their rules? If there is no consequence, laws are just words on paper.
No! I want insurance companies to stop killing and ripping people off.
This is done thorough legislation and taxation.
Raping and pillaging under the guise of a corporation is still Raping and pillaging.
The whole violence rap is a figment of your imagination.
Hiddenjems
Well-known member
What happens to the people that don’t follow your legislation?
dude, all this shit isn't new to me... it's just new for anyone to take these ideas seriously as a reasonable option in this time period.
the idea of a living within stateless society is foreign to me, in terms of conceptualizing it... but i have zero clue why you spend so much time spouting off about it as though it's this amazing, esoteric concept that we all need to embrace with open arms and we're murderers for not wanting to be raped and murdered when you get your way and the government dissolves.
Captain Red Eye
Active member
I want EVERYONE to stop murdering and ripping people off.
I want NOBODY to have the option of using force to make disinterested but otherwise peaceful people pay for their ideas.
You can't say the same without lying or denying reality.
You advocate laws which will violate my consent. You advocate for legal violence against me, even if I am not trying to do the same to you
Hiding behind "but but it's legal" if the concept itself is wrong, is silly and a proof of your double think.
It was legal to own other people at one time wasn't it?
Would you have told a slave, "keep picking cotton, some day we will vote you free!" 'The whole violence rap is a figment of your imagination Toby" !!!
You are okay with using government violence if it delivers you what you want. That is undeniable. Own it.
Captain Red Eye
Active member
I want you to be free to make your own peaceful choices, but not force your choices on other peaceful people who may chose differently. I want that for everyone.
Any person that is serious about peace would have to want that. Since without those tenets, peace is impossible
If you want that, politics under the present scenario will never deliver that. It is literally impossible since politics deviates systemically from those tenets.
Panarchy is a word that should be more understood.
They are your rules too. Remember "Of the People. By the People and For the People."
And you're right, Consequences are a necessary evil.
And lets keep in mind that you've drifted way off the original point. Captain Beefheart started the violence rant and you are trying to circle back that consequences mean violence. In fact. consequences mean order and violence is chaos. So you are trying to put a square peg through a round hole. Reigning in insurance fuckers, my statement, has nothing to do with any of this. But have a go anyway. I've got a little time to kill.
If you can't accept that consequences mean order and violence is chaos, and you want to insist that consequences and order mean violence. Think of this next time you stop at a red light or hand over two bucks for a loaf of bread. You are following the rules and it works. It's not there to make you feel oppressed.
Good! then when proposals are introduced to keep insurance companies from fucking and killing people, YOU should support it and vote for it. Don't start rambling on about this violence nonsense.
Captain Red Eye
Active member
Actually, the violence talk began with you.
You falsely stated you weren't advocating violence, when you clearly are advocating for a law to do your violence for you.
You try to obscure that by saying a set of contradictory rules can be voted to be not contradictory, which is absurd.
The problem isn't with Captain BIG Heart, it is with your inability to admit you hold two opposing beliefs at once.
You believe it's wrong for people to use laws like Insurance thieves do, to force you into limited choices.
We agree there. it is wrong.
You then think the solution to the problem above is for YOU to use the same kind of law, one which features forcing other people into fewer choices as a solution, as long as it serves your idea.
Then you go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to avoid admitting the obvious.
You aren't alone, millions have been trained to "think" this way.
So. I'm thinking of starting a grocery store and will be contacting you to discuss my payment plan for you. I'm sure you won't mind.
Captain Red Eye
Active member
I don't have any right to vote away your right to peaceful self-determination, nobody does.
Don't start claiming you aren't advocating violence when you clearly are and have the honesty to admit it.
Statist Claim:
Voting is Consent
Fallacy:
If you vote, you consent to everything the state does. If you don't, you can't complain!Response:
Herbert Spencer destroys these fallacies: see http://praxeology.net/Spencer-on-voting.htm. (DR)
The statists have it backwards. If you voluntarily go into a casino and lose your money, then you have no complaint, but if you did not go to the casino and someone comes out of the casino and robs you, then you can complain. It is the non-voters who have the most standing to complain. They did not endorse the game, they did not play the game, and yet it is imposed upon them anyway! The voters played the game, so if they complain it is just sour grapes - their side didn't win
by saying that we, the individual, are in support of violence because we vote or because we don't know how to navigate quickly and peacefully toward your ideal stateless society... you are really dumping your argument directly into the toilet.
it's like that whole thing where because (for example) poor 12 year olds have affordable healthcare that means federal funds are murdering fetuses against your religious will.
these kinds of things are major reaches.
it isn't that we don't see how you jump to these conclusions, it's that (i'm speaking for myself) we move past them because they aren't useful to bring up in any of these discussions.
it's like when i go "i know we are monkeys because we are simians and evolved from simians and monkey is another term for simian" and you go "you can't know that because true knowledge is impossible" and we have to go "yes that's nice, epistemology and all that- hey descartes- blah, but this isn't a philosophy of what constitutes knowing discussion; this is a biology discussion and we can know things and do know things in biology"... and then we get dragged back into epistemology and get nowhere.
it's like that whole thing where because (for example) poor 12 year olds have affordable healthcare that means federal funds are murdering fetuses against your religious will.
these kinds of things are major reaches.
it isn't that we don't see how you jump to these conclusions, it's that (i'm speaking for myself) we move past them because they aren't useful to bring up in any of these discussions.
it's like when i go "i know we are monkeys because we are simians and evolved from simians and monkey is another term for simian" and you go "you can't know that because true knowledge is impossible" and we have to go "yes that's nice, epistemology and all that- hey descartes- blah, but this isn't a philosophy of what constitutes knowing discussion; this is a biology discussion and we can know things and do know things in biology"... and then we get dragged back into epistemology and get nowhere.
Captain, zeez et al
It is a well known social science fact that laws are ultimately backed by violence. This is one reason following the evolution of non-profit medical care, I outlined paralleled with other payment forms is a better option.
However, consider this. A new grocery store is opened on the 2nd floor or up some steps. Do you accept that government funds should be used to provide access to wheelchair users or should they be forced to shop at their own 'private' grocery store?
It is a well known social science fact that laws are ultimately backed by violence. This is one reason following the evolution of non-profit medical care, I outlined paralleled with other payment forms is a better option.
However, consider this. A new grocery store is opened on the 2nd floor or up some steps. Do you accept that government funds should be used to provide access to wheelchair users or should they be forced to shop at their own 'private' grocery store?
I want legislation to keep insurance companies to stop robbing all the money and fucking people.
The rest of this crap is nothing but nonsense.
Captain Red Eye
Active member
So, tell the slave who's considering running away, "now hold on there Rastus, it's illegal for you to break the law, you, just keep picking cotton and obey the law" !!!!
Actually, there are lots of things stopping me from moving. First there are all the legal horse shit laws dictating which permission or another you have to have to travel. Think slave travel passes, but with modern pictures on them. I'll stop there for now.
Also, why should I have to go someplace else if I want to live in peace? What if the place I might go to is one of the many places the USA military you are forced to support already bombs or might begin bombing?
Breaking a bad law. one which violates rights is how the USA was founded isn't that right?
Even slave owning Thomas Jefferson got that part right.
Hiddenjems
Well-known member
“I want laws that limit the beatings I’m getting”
How about no insurance companies? Middlemen only drive up prices.
Doctors do not own hospitals but sometimes groups of doctors do. They need some device to operate this = non-profit medical care organization?
Captain Red Eye
Active member
There is no such thing as government funds, since all "their money" is either created under false pretenses or taken from people under threat of force.
If you didn't have a wheel-chair ramp at your store,
I'd put one at my store and all the people that support that would come flocking to my store to show their gratitude for my kindness. You would support my store then, right ? Free market solution for the win-win.
Charity is NOT taking from one person and giving it to another under threat of force.
Charity doesn't violate consent, you're confusing that with theft. Theft is taking something that isn't yours using fraud or threats of violence for noncompliance. I'm against that kind of behavior if you or I or ANYONE does that. Wish you were too.
