Beware the Marxist world of Kamalla Harris: "There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

[Ghost of a Rider]

And I'm explaining to you what that actually means. Buying my respect would be one way for us to have come to some sort of an agreement.

So your respect is for sale?

You don't own anything to the person not inclined to adhere to your subjective set of ideas and morals. Your options for the person who refuses to acknowledge your subjective set of ideas is to come to accept that someone else is going to go where they please on property you claim to be yours, come to another agreement with them, or force them off.

As I said, if I own it, I own it. His agreement is not required and his disagreement is irrelevant.

No...I'm explaining the narrative to you you dumb Bingo....

Bullshit. You still haven't explained how mere lack of respect is physical force. If you trespass on my property and I don't want you there, I do not agree with your imagined freedom to be there. If I don't force you off, it doesn't mean I respect or agree with you being there, it just means I have chosen not to try to force you off for whatever reason.

Respect is a feeling and physical force is an action. Feeling disrespect is not the same as showing disrespect.

You simply did not understand what I meant by respect.

I didn't understand because unlike you, I don't confuse feeling for action.

If you want to use respect differently than I was thats fine but you dont get to define how I was using it.

You didn't define it at all, that's the problem. You should have qualified your remarks at the time. Otherwise, why the fuck would I think you were referring to physical force when you use a word that is defined as a feeling, you idiot?

You can't express yourself worth a shit because the hardest words you know are Objective and Subjective and what's more, you seem to think that makes you some kind of philosopher.

You seem to be referring to your feelings, I was using it in reference to physical acts, i.e., walking all over your claim or being physically forced off a claim.

You're the one who used a word to describe a feeling, dumbass.

Do you have the natural freedom to claim ownership over something. Sure. You have the freedom to do whatever your physical capabilities allow you to. I never said you weren't free to do as you please. My argument is that you require physical force against others to make good on claims of ownership. Claiming ownership over a thing isn't just about you doing something, it's also about trying to restrict others from doing something as well, like the fence and lock you mention later.

Nope. You don't get to change the parameters that you laid out. The parameters you laid out to define freedom to go where you please was simply the physical ability to do so. That's it.

Based on those parameters, I have just as much freedom to stop you or force you off my property as I please.

Beyond the physical ability to go where you please, freedom is highly subjective.

Value is subjective. To some people freedom is everything so they fight to the death for it. In that case the value of freedom is life itself. If you're unwilling to fight for your claim then it isn't worth anything to you or anyone else.

Did you tell yourself this malarkey before you asked me what the value of claims are that can be ignored?

You said it, not me. All I did was turn it back around on you and you give yet another nauseating lecture on subjectivism which was at the core of your own remark.

When threats of physical force do not work that's when the government moves on to actual physical force. That's when the law enforcement officers show up with the guns and handcuffs.

Irrelevant. Force of law regarding compliance goes only as far we are willing to either obey the law or break it.

I can understand that you're using the word respect differently than I am, I don't know why you can't do the same other than you just being a massive moron.

Answer the question: Are you saying you do understand that not respecting my claim and walking on my property are two different things?

Yes, I want to make sure we're understanding one another. You seem confused by that desire. Its helpful in a conversation.

Bullshit. You claimed I was constantly bringing up law.

You didn't understand what I meant by respect. I didn't know what you thought the law was until you acknowledged it as a subjective set of ideas and morals. It's helpful to get clarification rather than to pretend the person meant something else. At least if you're interested in honest debate.

This doesn't mean much after telling me (and others) multiple times that you're only here for your own amusement.

I need to explain to you that there is no force between objects thats arent interacting? How fucking dumb are you?

You're the one who said law is force, not me.

Of course I'm only talking about laws that are being forced on people. Why would this conversation be about things that aren't happening?

Again, you tell me. You're the one who said law is force.

I mentioned Frederic Bastiat in either the last post or the post before that as the source of the phrase the law is force. I'm paraphrasing parts of his argument from The Law which he wrote in the 19th century. It's a great critique of government and law despite his beliefs in natural, inalienable rights being nonsense.

Okay, so you mentioned Bastiat a couple of times. Why would you ask me "How is it me, a 19th century philosopher and dblack can all understand what this means and you cant?" as if I would know anything about his philosophy just because you mentioned his name in this discussion?

You don't come across as genuine. You said something before about gaining insight into others' perspectives as a reason for asking questions and here you mention "clarification" and "honest debate". Problem is, the very second you get your clarification, honest debate or disagreeing counter argument, you denounce it as confused stupidity, call the person a moron and post a laugh emoji.

You're full of shit.

What? You're making a different argument than I am and trying to use the conclusion of your argument on mine. That's not how debate works Bingo.

Once again, you are the one who said law is force. You can't make sweeping declarations such as "Law is force" - where law, in and of itself, is force - and then when confronted with the flaws of your argument, try to explain that that was not what you meant. That's not how debate works, Bingo.

I would agree with you that it is subjective when society chooses to enforce law. However when society does enforce laws that is an objective use of force to compel people to adhere to a subjective set of ideas and morals.

It's also subjective that you have the freedom to go where you please. That you have the ability to go where you please is objective truth but whether or not you have the freedom to do so is subjective.

A factor to consider in what?

Your arguments about force and law, dumbass.

A different debate than the one I'm having?

This discussion is about arguments, claims and assertions YOU made, not me. I can't help it if you fail to consider the true complexity and the innumerable factors that come into play when considering your arguments.

You are demonstrably confused by the simple argument that the law is force and I'm happy for you to take the tactic of confusion and stupidity for as long as you like.

There it is again: Disagreement = Confusion/Stupidity.

You said "Law is force" and I said it is not and I gave my reasons for thinking this. What, exactly, about that gave you the impression I am confused?

This is from another discussion I stumbled over on this board, coincidently also involving dblack who gave the reply.

I DON'T CARE.

Notice how dblack didn't reply with, well what about when the government isn't interacting with you?

And of course there's the reliable old "So-and-So agrees with me" fallacy.

No one else is confused by the phrases the force of law or the law is force or the government rules by force except you apparently. Everyone else understands this to be in the context of when it is interacting with people.

Then you should have said "Law is force when interacting with people". Dumbass.

Why exactly am I unqualified to make this claim?

Really? Because you're claiming to speak for everyone as to their reasons and motives, that's why.

And in what context do you reference the subjectivity of law?

The context of the subjectivity of law. What else?

It's subjective to the interests of people you moron.

And those interests vary from person to person you moron.

That is what makes law subjective in the first place. Its not only an argument about law but about why humans do anything. Your actions are in service of your interests.The actions you take that aren't in service of your own interests are the ones you're being forced in to.

Not necessarily. Some people take actions that are of interest to what they see as a greater good to benefit others as well as themselves.

I didn't ask anything about objective reasons you illiterate dipshit. Where do you see the word objective in that question?

I didn't say objective reasons you illiterate dipshit. I said objective list of reasons.

You argued there were others reasons beyond self interest for the creation of law and I'm asking you what you imagine those other reasons to be.

You asked because you have no imagination.

My point was pretty fucking clear. Its that harmony is a funny word to use to describe anything from universal healthcare to slave plantations.

If it's subjective, what difference does it make to a subjective concept?

Do you find slave plantations particularly harmonious?

That's a stupid question to ask. If harmony is subjective and subjectivity is the point of your premise, it makes no difference what I feel to be harmonious.

I'm comfortable describing them as acts of self interests (for slave owners), I personally wouldn't describe them as attempts at harmony.

For them it was. Isn't that the fucking point of all this; the subjectivity of law to man made concepts of morality? Does it not stand to reason that their subjective ideas of morality will inform their subjective ideas of what is harmonious?

Goddamn you're a fucking idiot. This is why I say you don't fully grasp the scope of the very philosophy you preach about.

I've cited both because it is both. In our democratic society the law is a collection of self interests from the voting public (or the financially influential depending on your current level of cynicism). In a dictatorship the law represents the self interest of one person. It always boils down to self interest it's just a matter of who's.

But you didn't mention anything about self interests when talking about changing economic law.

Given the subjective and metaphorical nature of the term inharmonious I don't even know what you mean by that.

Why am I not surprised?

Harmonious and Inharmonious can both refer to universal healthcare and slave plantations depending on your perspective. I wouldn't use words that are inherently subjective to try and make an objective claim. That's your lane.

What objective claim did I make other than to say most people view law as a tool to attain a more harmonious and ordered society? Are you saying this is not true?

I used self interest. Disorder on the other hand can be an objective term and no, I'm not saying laws were created to sow disorder. Slave plantations were orderly when they operated as they were meant to, they were just ordered in accordance to the self interest of the Slaver rather than the slaves.

Don't be an idiot. Order or disorder on a slave plantation is irrelevant. We're talking about society as a whole, are we not?

And the moral of that story is what? That the law didn't act on your brother in that instance?

Yes. Didn't I make that clear?

My point is that when the law acts it acts to force people to adhere to a subjective set of ideas and morals. Instead of trying to argue with me about all the times the law isn't active why don't you address my actual argument which is about when it is?

Because you said LAW IS FORCE you idiot. I'm arguing against your own fucking words. I understand that force is applied when force is applied. But if it's not always applied or applied equally in every case, we can't very well say "law is force", can we?

Its inherent when it is applied.

And when it's not?

Why would I care or be arguing about something that isn't happening?

You tell me. You're the one wasting your time here responding to my "inane essays".

The officer on behalf of the law.

So then, law is not force.

Do I need to spell everything out for you and hold your hand through every argument? Because I don't mind at all treating you like a child, I'm just wondering if you're going to kick and scream the entire trip....

Why are you bitching now? You're the one who revived a discussion that had been dead for two weeks.

I don't care if you want to call it the law enforcement apparatus instead. Call it whatever makes you feel better just so long as we're clear that crimes are violations of a subjective set of ideas and morals.

You mean the collective will, right?

You can't because you're a moron.

I can't what?

Me and other posters say it freely and understand easily what is meant.

"So-and-So agrees with me so I'm smart and you're stupid."

Again, this is a you problem that I'm happy to help you keep highlighting.

Actually I think it's a problem for you. I don't have a problem understanding that law is not force.

What do you think my issue is?

The subjectivity of laws and morality. It's what you've been harping about for weeks.

My argument to dblack and to many libertarians who try to pretend to be above using force for self interest is to challenge them on that notion and then laugh when they run away.

I DON'T CARE.

Except that's not what I'm doing.

Yes, it is. If you didn't then you wouldn't have brought him up and you wouldn't have asked me why I don't understand his perspective, as if my understanding or agreeing with his perspective renders it valid or true.

The objective truth is the objective truth. I'm just pointing out how many different people, including someone from the 19th century, can understand the idea expressed behind the phrases force of law or the law is force or government rules with force in contrast to your repeated incapability to understand for my own amusement and the amusement of anyone still reading.

Oh I understand perfectly what you meant when you said "Law is force", I'm just enlightening you as to how force itself is subjective.

They all amount to being about when the law isn't being applied, my argument is about whenever it is.

And that's the problem. Any idiot knows that when force is applied, force is applied. But given that sometimes it is not applied, we can't say "Law is force".

Ok.... what are you confused by?

I didn't say I was confused.

The statement itself through its function acknowledges that there are some people's who's nature it is to adhere to these ideas or we wouldn't have the law to begin with. That's...how... that.... works. It's an easy logical connection to make if you're not a raging retard.

That's not what you said though. Your initial statement clearly says no one is inclined by nature to adhere to laws based on subjective feelings without physical force. You did not specify in that statement that you were referring to individuals who do not agree with or are otherwise not inclined to abide by a given law.

The law itself is based on subjective feelings.... these feelings come from people who's nature it is to cooperate to make law. Where else would they fucking come from guy? Magic? Goblins? Why do I have to spell that out for you like you're a child who can't think for himself? What the fuck is wrong with you?

As vague as the statement was, it might as well have been magic and goblins.

Again, you can't express yourself worth a shit.

Also please don't mistake my profanity for anger. I'm not mad at you.

Who said anything about your profanity?

In fact it's hard for me to express just how amused I am by your own magnificent stupidity.

It's hard for you to express anything. That's what I keep telling you. It's good to see you finally admitting it.

Thats not objective physical force against you my guy. You're talking about force against a fence. The only force being used against you in this scenario is a subjective one you and the law imagine.

Irrelevant. Force is force. If you were only talking about physical force against another person then you shouldn't have brought up physics.

I don't know what this means. I've talked about both.

Again, why am I not surprised?

Your Bingo brain is why you don't realize you're saying nothing because right and wrong mean anything and everything.

And your Bingo brain is why you don't realize the difference between subjective perspectives and the objective fact that most people have subjective perspectives.

I have a life guy. I don't always have time to sit down and respond to your inane essays.

Yet you took the time to write your own essay in a thread that had been dead for two weeks.

Dumbass.

He could of surrendered as easily as you did. I guess he chose confusion as a stall tactic but I'm more than happy to watch him stumble around confused.

Ah, the old Disagreement = Confusion ploy.

 

[Curried Goats]

That's an argument?? You're just making an unsupported claim. Here's my response - you're full of shit. Also, an unsupported claim, but your nonsense isn't worth more.

What unsupported claim? I'm critiquing your argument, Moron. You're the one who claimed there was a truly necessary function of government.

I have to be honest, I have a hard time taking you seriously. Your posts rarely make a cogent point, so I'm usually at a bit of loss as to how to respond.

Stick with insults instead or the pretense of being too stupid to undertsand my criticism of your argument.

 

[Curried Goats]

You didn't define it at all, that's the problem. You should have qualified your remarks at the time. Otherwise, why the fuck would I think you were referring to physical force when you use a word that is defined as a feeling, you idiot?

It okay to be to undertsand each other sometimes, what's funny is you trying to insist I mean something else than what I'm telling you I mean.

You can't express yourself worth a shit because the hardest words you know are Objective and Subjective and what's more, you seem to think that makes you some kind of philosopher.


You're the one who used a word to describe a feeling, dumbass.

Words are what we use to describe things guy. That's how that works....

Nope. You don't get to change the parameters that you laid out. The parameters you laid out to define freedom to go where you please was simply the physical ability to do so. That's it.

Based on those parameters, I have just as much freedom to stop you or force you off my property as I please.

This is you at least attempting to counter mu argument, for once. The problem is I'm not arguing that you don't have the freedom to use force against me. I'm only arguing that its you that has to use force against others to claim ownership over a thing and here you are confirming my argument, so thank you. Moron.

 

[Curried Goats]

Irrelevant. Force is force. If you were only talking about physical force against another person then you shouldn't have brought up physics.

Also physics works just fine for my argument. Force is force but my argument is about force against people, not against fences. Physically you are not the fence. Objectively, a violation of the fence is not a violation of you. The violation of the fence is only a violation of you subjectively according to law.

 

[JusticeHammer]

White Americans really need to shut up about this. Go back and re read your history so you understand how America was socially engineered to provide the best possible outcomes for whites.

You shut up

 

[JusticeHammer]

Whites didn't find or build a damn thing. People were already living here when whites showed up and my ancestors along with other non whites literaly built this land yr ancestrs tried committing genocide to have. So again whites need to shut the fuck up about equity when they made the rules to exclude non whites and the ONLY reason they ave what they do is because of social engneering.

Today the same racism exists that has denied equalit and equity. So you can just stop lying about how your white racist ass is getting punished for the past.

Boo hoo. STFU

 

[IM2]

You shut up

No. Go back and learn your history white man. Not the fairy tale you spew in places like this.

 

[IM2]

Boo hoo. STFU

Can't handle the truth white boy?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It okay to be to undertsand each other sometimes, what's funny is you trying to insist I mean something else than what I'm telling you I mean.

Answer the question: Why would I think you were referring to physical force when you use a word that is defined as a feeling?

Words are what we use to describe things guy. That's how that works....

So you use a word that defines a feeling to describe physical force? That's how words work? In that case, why didn't you just say "You disenchant my freedom to go where I please."?

This is you at least attempting to counter mu argument, for once. The problem is I'm not arguing that you don't have the freedom to use force against me.

But you are arguing that you have the freedom to go where you please because property rights and laws are subjective. So if we both enjoy our respective freedoms, what gives yours any special meaning?

I'm only arguing that its you that has to use force against others to claim ownership over a thing and here you are confirming my argument, so thank you. Moron.

And you force your way onto someone else's property, So?

Also physics works just fine for my argument.

I didn't suggest it didn't. What I'm suggesting is that you fail to realize it works fine for my argument too.

Force is force but my argument is about force against people, not against fences. Physically you are not the fence. Objectively, a violation of the fence is not a violation of you.

But objectively it is a violation of my property.

The violation of the fence is only a violation of you subjectively according to law.

So then my forcing you off my property shouldn't matter since it's all subjective anyway, including your idea that you have the freedom to go where you please.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Can't handle the truth white boy?

Not your twisted version.

 

[IM2]

Not your twisted version.

There is nothing twisted about it. So go back and learn your history.

 

[Curried Goats]

Answer the question: Why would I think you were referring to physical force when you use a word that is defined as a feeling?

I don't fantasize about what you imagine. If I'm unsure or confused about anything, I ask. Confusion happens time to time. Also, here's the definition from Merriam-Webster.

Respect:

1. A - to consider in high regard: esteem

B - to refrain from interfering with

Fucktard....

So you use a word that defines a feeling to describe physical force? That's how words work? In that case, why didn't you just say "You disenchant my freedom to go where I please."?

I know you're a fucking moron who doesn't know all words are made up, doesn't know respect was made up to refer to both actions and feelings, and didn't understand the difference between objective, subjective or yourself and a fucking fence....

How much of a fucking moron are you?

But you are arguing that you have the freedom to go where you please because property rights and laws are subjective. So if we both enjoy our respective freedoms, what gives yours any special meaning?

No. That wasnt what i was arguing you illiterate moron. I have the freedom, i.e. ability to go where I want because of biology. That's an objective fact. That you own something is only your subjective belief and the subjective belief of whatever legal system you're under.

And you force your way onto someone else's property, So?

It's only subjectively your property. Objectively it's just land and a structure (if there's a house) to anyone not inclined to share your fantasy.

I didn't suggest it didn't. What I'm suggesting is that you fail to realize it works fine for my argument too.

If your argument is about how you and the fence are subjectively the same thing, sure. But that isn't my argument, Clown. My argument is that it requires objective force against people (not fences or fences that are subjectively a part of you) to claim and maintain ownership of anything.

But objectively it is a violation of my property.

Only according to subjective law. The objectivity you are relying on (what do these laws actually say) doesn't change the fact that all law itself is subjective. Moron.

So then my forcing you off my property shouldn't matter since it's all subjective anyway, including your idea that you have the freedom to go where you please.

No. Again my freedom and ability are objective biological facts. Moron. And you forcing me off land you claim to be yours is you objectively using physical force against a person to protect your subjective claim.

 

[Mac1958]

"Marxist"

Economists Say Inflation, Deficits Will Be Higher Under Trump Than Harris​

https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/economists-say-inflation-deficits-will-be-higher-under-trump-than-harris-0365588e

 

[Curried Goats]

"Marxist"

Economists Say Inflation, Deficits Will Be Higher Under Trump Than Harris​

https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/economists-say-inflation-deficits-will-be-higher-under-trump-than-harris-0365588e

Well see to republicans, marxism is when you pay for government programs by taxing the rich. When you don't ever pay your contractors or you engage in fraud to pay back your loans well that's just the art of deal.....

 

[JusticeHammer]

There is nothing twisted about it. So go back and learn your history.

I know my history, do you? Did you know the first slave owner was black. Oh th truth shall set you free.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Well see to republicans, marxism is when you pay for government programs by taxing the rich. When you don't ever pay your contractors or you engage in fraud to pay back your loans well that's just the art of deal.....

So since retarded liberals want to tax the rich they are marxist? Thanks for admitting that you retards

 

[Curried Goats]

So since retarded liberals want to tax the rich they are marxist? Thanks for admitting that you retards

You're welcome!

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I don't fantasize about what you imagine. If I'm unsure or confused about anything, I ask. Confusion happens time to time. Also, here's the definition from Merriam-Webster.

Respect:

1. A - to consider in high regard: esteem

B - to refrain from interfering with

Fucktard....

That's not the definition of Disrespect. Also, "To refrain from interfering with" does not say anything about physical force.

Fucktard.

I know you're a fucking moron who doesn't know all words are made up, doesn't know respect was made up to refer to both actions and feelings, and didn't understand the difference between objective, subjective or yourself and a fucking fence....

Nope. When I first asked you about this word I asked you how disrespect was physical force in the case of the property owner but not in the case of the trespasser. Your response did not in any way allow that disrespect is both an action and a feeling at that time. Your words indicated or implied that disrespect from the property owner could ONLY be physical force.

Here is what you said in Post #1063:

"Physical force however is needed in order for you to not respect my objective and innate freedom to go where I want because not respecting this freedom requires you or someone else to physically stop me."

See, I knew then that disrespect was both a feeling and an action and is precisely why I asked the question. You, however, bulled ahead with your "disrespect is physical force" narrative anyway.

I was the one who pointed out that feeling disrespect and showing disrespect are two different things. Yet here you are trying to lecture me that "disrespect" is both a feeling and an action.

Goddamn what a hypocrite.

How much of a fucking moron are you?

How much of a fucking hypocrite are you?

No. That wasnt what i was arguing you illiterate moron. I have the freedom, i.e. ability to go where I want because of biology. That's an objective fact. That you own something is only your subjective belief and the subjective belief of whatever legal system you're under.

You're claiming freedom to trespass on property because you have the objective ability to go where you please and because property ownership is ultimately subjective, yes?

It's only subjectively your property. Objectively it's just land and a structure (if there's a house) to anyone not inclined to share your fantasy.

And it's only subjective that you have the right or freedom to be there.

If your argument is about how you and the fence are subjectively the same thing, sure. But that isn't my argument, Clown. My argument is that it requires objective force against people (not fences or fences that are subjectively a part of you) to claim and maintain ownership of anything.

My argument is, force is force. And it requires force to trespass, especially if the property is fenced and/or locked.

YOU brought up physics, not me.

Only according to subjective law. The objectivity you are relying on (what do these laws actually say) doesn't change the fact that all law itself is subjective. Moron.

Your "freedom" to go where you please is also subjective. Moron.

No. Again my freedom and ability are objective biological facts.

Wrong. Your ability to be mobile is objective fact. That you have the freedom to go where you please, including on owned property, is subjective.

Moron. And you forcing me off land you claim to be yours is you objectively using physical force against a person to protect your subjective claim.

I'm just defending myself and property from your subjective claim: that you have the right to be there.

 

[Curried Goats]

That's not the definition of Disrespect. Also, "To refrain from interfering with" does not say anything about physical force.

Fucktard.

The example given for that defintion was :respect their privacy.

That's talking about an action not a feeling you stupid fucktard and disrespect would be the opposite of respecting their privacy, i.e. the act of interfering with their privacy. Who the fuck taught you to understand communication because you're shit at it.....

Nope. When I first asked you about this word I asked you how disrespect was physical force in the case of the property owner but not in the case of the trespasser. Your response did not in any way allow that disrespect is both an action and a feeling at that time. Your words indicated or implied that disrespect from the property owner could ONLY be physical force.

The way I meant it was as an action, not a feeling you moron. I didn't say you couldn't use it as a feeling, in fact I said you use it any way you feel like.

Here is what you said in Post #1063:

"Physical force however is needed in order for you to not respect my objective and innate freedom to go where I want because not respecting this freedom requires you or someone else to physically stop me."

That is what said. Where in there do you see me saying no one can use respect to describe a feeling? It just so happens that the way I was using it was to describe an action. Again, who the fuck taught you to communicate? A mime?

See, I knew then that disrespect was both a feeling and an action and is precisely why I asked the question. You, however, bulled ahead with your "disrespect is physical force" narrative anyway.

Yes, in the way I was using it. You use respect however you like to convey whatever meaning you like, Moron.

I was the one who pointed out that feeling disrespect and showing disrespect are two different things. Yet here you are trying to lecture me that "disrespect" is both a feeling and an action.

Goddamn what a hypocrite.

What are you pointing out clown? I was never confused that respect could be used either way I'm confused why you think you get to decide in which way I meant it.....

How much of a fucking hypocrite are you?

How much of a moron are you?

You're claiming freedom to trespass on property because you have the objective ability to go where you please and because property ownership is ultimately subjective, yes?

Its not objectively trespassing, only subjectively according to law (because law is ultimatelty subjective) you dumb bingo. How many times must we retread old ground because you dont understand the difference?

And it's only subjective that you have the right or freedom to be there.

You're using freedom differently than I am. You're using it as a legal concept. Which is subjective. I'm using it to articulate the ability for independent thought and action, i.e. freedom of thought and motion. That i have objectively by biology.

My argument is, force is force. And it requires force to trespass, especially if the property is fenced and/or locked.

Force is force but your argument is about force against objects that arent objectively you. That isn't a counter to my argument. I'd agree that hoping over a fence or breaking a lock would be force against a fence or lock.

YOU brought up physics, not me.

I did and so far its working just fine for me. You just defined force against objects which I'm not disputing. Also you seem confused over the fact that objectively you are not a fence.

Your "freedom" to go where you please is also subjective. Moron.

Did you put "freedom" in quotation marks because you know I'm using it to refer to biological ability? Because biological capability isn't subjective its objective. Your capabilities are what they are.

Wrong. Your ability to be mobile is objective fact. That you have the freedom to go where you please, including on owned property, is subjective.

In the way you want to use the word freedom, not the way I'm using it. Do you want to address my argument or are you just going to insist on applying your own meaning to my arguments?

I'm just defending myself and property from your subjective claim: that you have the right to be there.

I didn't say anything about rights because I wasn't talking about freedom in terms of legal rights or any sort of legal framework. I was using it to describe freedom of motion.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

The example given for that defintion was :respect their privacy.

Irrelevant. It's still not the definition of Disrespect and anyway, this definition for "respect" does not suggest that "interfering" only involves physical force.

That's talking about an action not a feeling you stupid fucktard and disrespect would be the opposite of respecting their privacy, i.e. the act of interfering with their privacy. Who the fuck taught you to understand communication because you're shit at it.....

It does not say that the action of interfering must involve physical force.

Who the fuck taught you to understand communication because you're shit at it.

The way I meant it was as an action, not a feeling you moron. I didn't say you couldn't use it as a feeling, in fact I said you use it any way you feel like.

Nope, that's not what you said. I quoted you directly in my last post. When I asked, you said:

"Physical force however is needed in order for you to not respect my objective and innate freedom to go where I want because not respecting this freedom requires you or someone else to physically stop me."
Physical force is needed and required to disrespect your ability to go where you please. That's what you said. You clearly stated that, in so many words, physical force is the only way I can disrespect your ability to go where you please.

These are your words, dumbass. Now own up to them.

That is what said. Where in there do you see me saying no one can use respect to describe a feeling? It just so happens that the way I was using it was to describe an action. Again, who the fuck taught you to communicate? A mime?

Who the fuck taught you to communicate, a Democrat?

Again, when I asked, you stated plainly that physical force is needed and required to disrespect your ability to go where you please. This was after I pointed out I could disrespect your freedom to go where you please without forcing you off my property.

Yes, in the way I was using it. You use respect however you like to convey whatever meaning you like, Moron.

Wrong, moron. You made it clear that physical force was necessary. You went as far as to say that by NOT forcing you off my property, I was respecting your freedom to go where you please. The implication was that disagreeing with or disrespecting your being there was not truly disrespect; that physical force was needed and required to truly disrespect your being there.

You said what you said and there's no getting away from it.

What are you pointing out clown? I was never confused that respect could be used either way

Yes you were. It wasn't until I pointed out that it could be used either way that you lectured me it could be used either way. Before that, you said physical force is needed and required to disrespect.

I'm confused why you think you get to decide in which way I meant it.....

I'm confused why you argued then that disrespect can only be physical force in this case but now you're lecturing me that the word can be used either way after I pointed out to you that it could be used either way.

This is not about what you meant, this is about you arguing that disrespect can only be physical force. When I said I could disrespect your ability to be there without forcing you off, you argued with me. You did not say then that you meant the word in a different context and you did not acknowledge that I could disrespect without force. You fucking told me physical force is needed and required.

How much of a moron are you?

I'm not the one crawfishing from my previous assertions here, you are.

Its not objectively trespassing, only subjectively according to law (because law is ultimatelty subjective) you dumb bingo. How many times must we retread old ground because you dont understand the difference?

There it is again: Disagreement = Confusion/Stupidity.

How many times must I retread old ground because you don't understand I'm disagreeing with you? I do not agree that trespassing is ultimately subjective. If a person legally owns their property and you trespass, you are objectively trespassing.

Got it?

You're using freedom differently than I am. You're using it as a legal concept. Which is subjective. I'm using it to articulate the ability for independent thought and action, i.e. freedom of thought and motion. That i have objectively by biology.

I understand this. But the way you are presenting your argument, having the ability gives you the right. But it doesn't.

Force is force but your argument is about force against objects that arent objectively you. That isn't a counter to my argument. I'd agree that hoping over a fence or breaking a lock would be force against a fence or lock.

And I'm telling you that physical force against another person is not the only force that matters here. Breaking into my home and stealing my property, for example, is force nonetheless.

If you think I'm going to relegate the significance of that force just because you think you have the right to access to my pecans, buddy, you are sorely mistaken.

I did and so far its working just fine for me.

It works fine for me as well.

You just defined force against objects which I'm not disputing. Also you seem confused over the fact that objectively you are not a fence.

You said you enjoyed honest debate. So prove it and quit these childish games. I'm not telling you force is force because I think I'm akin to a fence you fucking idiot. I'm telling you force is force because the issue is much more complex than you wanting my pecans or natural resources.

Did you put "freedom" in quotation marks because you know I'm using it to refer to biological ability? Because biological capability isn't subjective its objective. Your capabilities are what they are.

So it's true, you can see quotation marks!

In the way you want to use the freedom, not the way I'm using it.

Doesn't matter how you're using it. Having the capability to walk and talk does not lend you any special privileges or free access to peoples' property. Your ideas are subjective.

Do you want to address my argument or are you just going to insist on applying your own meaning to my arguments?

I don't know what you mean by "address my argument". Are you asking me if I'm going to address it or concede your point? If memory serves, I did address it when I told you that your "freedom" to go where you please is subjective. But apparently, to you, my disagreeing and offering a counterargument do not address your argument. Go figure.

I didn't say anything about rights because I wasn't talking about freedom in terms of legal rights or any sort of legal framework. I was using it to describe freedom of motion.

You'll understand then that if you trespass on my property, I will force you off physically and in the grand scheme of things, that won't mean shit. Right?