What's new

Luigi Mangione

audiohi

Well-known member
Veteran
You began by asking me questions and now when you can't answer my questions you post your high school senior picture? :giggle:

so you've moved from a hypothetical about a racist that another member wanted to use violence against, and a black prostitute and a Chinese man, to the racist is the black prostitute. Next, to forced sex and massages, and now to forcing people associate with others?

what question are you asking

I don't really care
 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
so you've moved from a hypothetical about a racist, a black prostitute and a Chinese man, to the racist is the black prostitute. Next, to forced sex and massages, and now to forcing people associate with others?

what question are you asking

I don't really care

I began by asking eltito what the extent of his use of force would be to make disinterested but otherwise peaceful people associate and used a black racist in the example.

He had made a claim he would use violence against a racist. In the context of the conversation it was a legit question. He's avoided answering ever since.

You came along and didn't understand the question, I explained it, despite your obvious snarky attitude.

You never really answered the question, because you saw the obvious dilemma and answered the question
in a half-way manner. You didn't really address the racism, you just said you wouldn't force the person to have sex against her will. At least you have that going for you.

Then you attempted to, by innuendo call me a racist, when all I do is respect even a racist black lady prostitute has every right to choose who she will and will not associate with and obviously have sex with or not, even if it's her business to have sex with people.

Then you posted your picture. You looked a little bloated in it. I know this hooker that gives good back rubs that might be able to help you out. You're not Chinese are you? :)
 

Eltitoguay

Well-known member
Also, child labor is a contextual thing.
The very specific context is that you continue to defend and promote, with all its implications (because I know that your ideology lacks the concept of "social responsibility"):

-Free market of human organs , (even if are from poor people still alive, under "legitimate and legal economic blackmail")...

-"Legitimate and legal economic blackmail"

-Child labour.

 
Last edited:

Captain Red Eye

Active member
The very specific context is that you continue to defend and promote, with all its implications (because I know that your ideology lacks the concept of "social responsibility"):

-Free market of human organs , (even if are from poor people still alive, under "legitimate and legal economic blackmail")...

-"Legitimate and legal economic blackmail"

-Child labour.

No. You really don't know my ideology regarding social responsibility.
The first thing about social responsibility is not to use offensive force against people. It's wrong.

That is MY underlying principle.

A democracy is based in the idea that offensive force is acceptable. THAT is your ideology. You shirk your social responsibility when you disallow others the right to self-determine peacefully and project it onto me as if I am the one willing to force my ideas on other people. That's a little odd.

You are confused and trying hard to imply a democracy can give rights to a group nobody in the democracy has or had to begin with. That's literally impossible despite many people believing it isn't.

It's easy to prove too.

To find out how, it will cost you some answers to the Luigi questions though. Sorry, free market rules, value for value. no coercion needed.
 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
The very specific context is that you continue to defend and promote, with all its implications (because I know that your ideology lacks the concept of "social responsibility"):

-Free market of human organs , (even if are from poor people still alive, under "legitimate and legal economic blackmail")...

-"Legitimate and legal economic blackmail"

-Child labour.



Thanks. I like Bob Marley. You're alright sometimes.
 

Eltitoguay

Well-known member
And you continue to defend and promote, with all its implications (because I know that your ideology lacks the concept of "social responsibility"):

-Free market of human organs , (even if are from poor people still alive, under "legitimate and legal economic blackmail")...

-"Legitimate and legal economic blackmail"

-Child labour.


And this has no theory, philosophy, explanation, justification, topic or twisted paradox, able to hide it.

 
Last edited:

Microbeman

The Logical Gardener
ICMag Donor
Veteran
No. You really don't know my ideology regarding social responsibility.
The first thing about social responsibility is not to use offensive force against people. It's wrong.

That is MY underlying principle.

A democracy is based in the idea that offensive force is acceptable. THAT is your ideology. You shirk your social responsibility when you disallow others the right to self-determine peacefully and project it onto me as if I am the one willing to force my ideas on other people. That's a little odd.

You are confused and trying hard to imply a democracy can give rights to a group nobody in the democracy has or had to begin with. That's literally impossible despite many people believing it isn't.

It's easy to prove too.

To find out how, it will cost you some answers to the Luigi questions though. Sorry, free market rules, value for value. no coercion needed.
Perhaps a consensus democracy? AKA Haudenosaunee Confederacy.
I'm totally jealous. I did not get the Luigi question.

Are you into Buddhism? Sometimes I'm into Badhism but try not to be. I spent the day with Dali Lama in the early 70s at my friend's house in Vancouver. He was younger then, as was I. We sat in the living room and laughed uncontrollably at the TV. I was smoking (and importing) Oaxacan spears back then. He seemed just as high as me.

I was a little disconcerted by Eltito's (my good uncle) Youtube video of him. That was downright weird.
 

Eltitoguay

Well-known member
No. You really don't know my ideology regarding social responsibility.
The first thing about social responsibility is not to use offensive force against people. It's wrong.

That is MY underlying principle.

A democracy is based in the idea that offensive force is acceptable. THAT is your ideology. You shirk your social responsibility when you disallow others the right to self-determine peacefully and project it onto me as if I am the one willing to force my ideas on other people. That's a little odd.

You are confused and trying hard to imply a democracy can give rights to a group nobody in the democracy has or had to begin with. That's literally impossible despite many people believing it isn't.

It's easy to prove too.

To find out how, it will cost you some answers to the Luigi questions though. Sorry, free market rules, value for value. no coercion needed.

1 ) : "Sorry, free market rules, value for value. no coercion needed."

I'll start at the end, which is the most hopeful. My hope is to correct the bold part of my assumptions/accusations as false (to be an advocate and promoter of) :

-Free market of human organs , (even if are from poor people still alive, under "legitimate and legal economic blackmail")...

-"Legitimate and legal economic blackmail"

-Child labour.

Since it seems that you find it difficult or avoid getting into general concepts, I will use your resource for individual cases...:

If a person is in a situation of extreme and urgent need (food, water, shelter, ... or health care for their children), and at that moment there is only one multimillionaire aspiring to be a Neofeudal Lord nearby to negotiate with, who offers to cover such extreme need, in exchange for a kidney from the offeror, when in the vast majority of normal situations, in the vast majority of the demand for that good it is offered in exchange for 100 kilos of oranges, and for human kidneys those 100 kilos + a 100 hectare orange grove are paid...;
Is it economic blackmail, or a legitimate free market?

Even easier with the "economic paradox" of water and diamonds:
1736812325852.jpeg

If my Saharawi cousin, when he finds you lost in the desert, so that you don't die of thirst, demands for a glass of water, not just a handful of dates (let's say the price of the vast majority of water or even té, traded in the Sáhara), not even a handful or all the diamonds in your bag; he also wants a kidney...; Is it economic blackmail, or a legitimate free market?
1736811917216.jpeg

"You leave me with diamonds and kidneys... What I want is an electric guitar!"


...............................

2 ) : "you disallow others the right to self-determine peacefully and project it onto me as if I am the one willing to force my ideas on other people."

No.
I am clear that although what you propose is (and leads to more) Social Crime, it is clear that you are not a dictator or autocrat nor do you want to impose by force your ideology on anyone.
When I criticize how human life would be if your ideology triumphed, I am not implying that you want to impose it by physical force.

............................................

3 ) : I'll answer your questions:
...The fact that a racist prostitute does not want to negotiate sex with a client of another race due to racism does not imply that this racist act should/can be punishable... There is no crime, neither individual nor social.
 
Last edited:

Eltitoguay

Well-known member
Perhaps a consensus democracy? AKA Haudenosaunee Confederacy.
I'm totally jealous. I did not get the Luigi question.

Are you into Buddhism? Sometimes I'm into Badhism but try not to be. I spent the day with Dali Lama in the early 70s at my friend's house in Vancouver. He was younger then, as was I. We sat in the living room and laughed uncontrollably at the TV. I was smoking (and importing) Oaxacan spears back then. He seemed just as high as me.

I was a little disconcerted by Eltito's (my good uncle) Youtube video of him. That was downright weird.

Wow... I thought it was public domain, given the huge media impact it had in my country...:
(It is not my intention to cast the shadows that may exist over Buddhist leaders, over Buddhism in general, of course; religions or political ideologies are one thing, and the people who lead or follow them are another thing, of course.)

755184533_232298350_1706x960.jpg

1736814350014.jpeg

Asia

Controversy and outrage over a video in which the Dalai Lama kisses a child and asks him to "suck" his tongue​

Following the uproar, the Buddhist leader has apologized to the boy and his family and to "everyone" for "the harm caused."​

April 10, 2023


The Dalai Lama, this Saturday, in Amsterdam.

World

The Dalai Lama knew about sexual abuse by Buddhist teachers "since the 1990s"​

The Tibetan religious leader acknowledged this in an interview with several Dutch media outlets.​

September 15, 2018
 

Microbeman

The Logical Gardener
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Wow... I thought it was public domain, given the huge media impact it had in my country...:
(It is not my intention to cast the shadows that may exist over Buddhist leaders, over Buddhism in general, of course; religions or political ideologies are one thing, and the people who lead or follow them are another thing, of course.)

755184533_232298350_1706x960.jpg

View attachment 19132075
Asia

Controversy and outrage over a video in which the Dalai Lama kisses a child and asks him to "suck" his tongue​

Following the uproar, the Buddhist leader has apologized to the boy and his family and to "everyone" for "the harm caused."​

April 10, 2023


The Dalai Lama, this Saturday, in Amsterdam.

World

The Dalai Lama knew about sexual abuse by Buddhist teachers "since the 1990s"​

The Tibetan religious leader acknowledged this in an interview with several Dutch media outlets.​

September 15, 2018
I don't get out much.
 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
Since it seems that you find it difficult or avoid getting into general concepts,

More projection on your part. I understand general principles very well. I shout them out in nearly every post. You ignore them, and only see the end result, while pretending the means you use is not part of the whole. That's sort of the basic difference we have.

For example, I've only mentioned about a thousand times, it's wrong for individuals to use offensive force,
You should have known from that I'm against strapping people down, harvesting their organs and selling their organs etc., kidnapping people and forcing them into work situations they can't escape etc.

Anyhow back to the thing you ignore

Since it's wrong for individuals to use offensive force, they can't all combine their zero right to do so and form a government which is based in using offensive force and be rightful.
I can easily prove that using math, not that it isn't already self-evident anyway.

That means two things.

I'm proceeding logically, with the idea that human cooperation should be based in voluntary concepts, ie based in consent. That's how you foment peace and respect individual choice.

You are proceeding illogically and involuntarily, you don't think being in accord with consent is the best way for humans to cooperate. You think offensive force is a fine tool to use to get your way. So do rapists, warlords, thieves et al.

You're fine with enveloping people in your idea by using offensive force, even if the other person is disinterested and behaving in an otherwise peaceful manner. You make them "automatically" a subject within your scheme.
That will never lead to peace, since the means you use isn't peaceful, it inescapably becomes part of your scheme.

The problem is you have been brainwashed to think a democracy is somehow a great exception to logic and involuntary inclusion in a democracy somehow is able to defy logic, (and math) and magically any force a democracy uses is nonexistent or if you're not ignorant of that, it's even worse.

It's worse if you know a democracy violates human consent and then say, but we need the democracy, so we can have a society to protect us from people that might violate consent. Which is poor illogical circular nonsensical reasoning.

You will not be able to refute what I said, nor will you address it in any significant way. I'm willing to continue having a conversation, but not until you tell me why you think your democracy can use offensive force, while every other person is wrong when they do it.



I appreciate that you want to lift people out of despair, so do I. I'll continue to operate my life as best I can in accordance with my more peaceful means than you find acceptable.
 
Last edited:

Captain Red Eye

Active member
Are there any true free market economies?

Yes. An "economy" (or bits and pieces of it) isn't constrained by government violence all the time, despite their attempts to do so.

An economy in the macro sense is the aggregate of all the trade interactions done by people in a given area. In the micro sense, free market trade happens all the time all around the world.

Within the macro economy, there are millions of micro trade actions which don't have the boot of government welded to them.

For instance, you and I are neighbors, you grew excess squash and have a ton of zucchini, I have a ton of tomatoes. We caustiously look around to make sure there's no government agents lurking and we exchange the produce. You're happy to get some tomatoes, I'm happy to get some squash. We just made a free market trade.

We both "won", since we both got what we want. Multiply that across millions of those kind of trade interactions. It would have worked in similar fashion if you sold me the squash at an agreed to price, rather than traded product for product, as long as we both freely agreed to the trade and no third party intervened against our will.

A free market trade is simply one where all parties agree to the trade. I combine that with my philosophy of it being wrong to use offensive force and proceed from there. Curious if you find that to be a reasonable way to proceed in life?
 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
:shucks::good: his near-total lack of empathy is ..."enlightening" to put it mildly. JMHO

An empathetic person would realize if they don't like to be forced into human relationships, other people might not like it either.

By relying on a forcible democracy. which necessarily violates the concept above, you prove your own accusation applies to you.

You won't be able to refute that and will wander away muttering things about me, rather than addressing what I said.

To put it mildly.
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top