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

[Curried Goats]

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

No, it suggests that respect can be used to describe feelings and actions, retard.

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

It says it's an action.

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

Says the guy who insisted respect is a feeling and expressed confusion over it being used to describe an action....

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.

Yes, it takes an act of physical force to stop me moving against my will. Jesus christ you're a fucking moron....

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

I'm happy to dipshit.

Who the fuck taught you to communicate, a Democrat?

Not who ever educated you to the point that you were confused about respect being used to describe actions...

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, an act of physical force is necessary to stop my motion against my will. That's more physics. Newton's first law actually. An object in motion will remain in motion until acted on. You keep wanting to reframe my arguments to be about your feelings instead of objective facts about the physical word you exist in.

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.

I dont care what you thought was implied you dumb Bingo. That becomes irrelevant the moment I explain to you what I actually meant.

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

I'm not trying to. Your confusion doesn't change my argument, moron.

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.

Dumb mother fucker, here's you trying to explain to me, like a fucking moron, that respect is only feeling. Don't act like you're the one who knew better now when your ignorance is on full display, Fucktard...

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?

Yes, why would you think I was talking about an action? After all you're a fucking Moron.

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.

I didnt say respect or disrespect the words, could only ever be physical forces you idiot. I was saying a physical force, i.e. a physical action, or an act of disrespect, was necessary to stop my motion. That's simple fucking physics you dipshit.

This is not about what you meant, this is about you arguing that disrespect can only be physical force.

No, this is about you pretending that argument was about the word respect and not about how one goes about stopping someone when they are in motion.

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.

I thought you understood respect could be an action. Again I've underestimated your capacity for idiocy.

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


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.

According to law which you admitted previously was a subjective set of ideas and morals, correct? If the foundation you're relying on for your argument is a subjective set of ideas and morals then your argument is ultimatelty subjective.

It's like functions in math. F(X) where where X is The Law and the function of the law is as a subjective set of ideas and morals. That means whenever in your argument you use The Law or the legal system we can substitute the function a subjective set of ideas and morals in its place. So let's look back at your argument above with that in mind. If we do what gets spit out at us is this:

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 according to a subjective set of ideas and morals owns their property and you trespass, you are objectively tresspassing.

See how that works? The legal system at the premise of your ownership is itself a subjective set of ideas and morals. That's what ultimately makes it subjective. Now do you disagree with me because you now think the law or legal system is something other than a subjective set of ideas and morals? Or just because "not uh"?

Got it?

I get that you're a moron who doesn't understand the legal system that you rely on for your premise is a subjective set of ideas and morals even though you yourself said it previously....

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

What's a right in your context? A subjective set of ideas and morals? Why would I need that? All I need to go where I want is the objective physical ability to do so.

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.

Well now youre talking about feelings and what matters to you emotionally as if that's supposed to be my problem.

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.

You feel anyway you like about it guy. The significance of it is entirely subjective. Mine is an objective argument about physics and yours continues to be one about your subjective fee fees.

It works fine for me as well.

For your feelings argument. There there...

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.

What's complex about it? Your feelings? Everyone's feelings are complex. They're also entirely subjective.

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


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.

The premise that it is your property in the first place rest on a bed of subjectivity.

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 don't have the biological freedom to move my body however I want in the manner its capable of moving? That's news to me.....

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?

I understand that after all these pages you're actually now confirming my argument, that objective physical force is necessary against people to make subjective claims of ownership, like the Bingo you are....

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

No, it suggests that respect can be used to describe feelings and actions, retard.

First of all, I'm the one who had to point that out to you. Secondly, your entire argument is premised on physical force against another person. But the not-interfering definition of respect that you cited does not suggest that by interfering, you are using physical force.

It says it's an action.

Yes. But as I said, your premise is physical force.

Remember, this all started when you said physical force was needed and required to disrespect your freedom to go where you please.

Says the guy who insisted respect is a feeling and expressed confusion over it being used to describe an action....

Says the guy who insisted that disrespect is solely action, i.e., physically forcing you off my property.

Again, I'm the one who had to remind you that there is a difference between feeling disrespect (or lack of respect) and showing disrespect.

Yes, it takes an act of physical force to stop me moving against my will. Jesus christ you're a fucking moron....

Yes, it takes physical force to stop you moving (on my property) against your will. That was never in dispute. What is in dispute is your use of the word "disrespect" in this context and your incorrect assertion that physical force is needed to disrespect your presence there.

I can disrespect or disagree with your presence on my property without forcing you off. This is an objective fact.

I'm happy to dipshit.

Then do it dipshit. You're evading the point that physical force is not required to disrespect your presence on my property. You have yet to acknowledge this.

Not who ever educated you to the point that you were confused about respect being used to describe actions...

You are the one who was ignorant of the fact that it is both a feeling and an action. This was glaringly evident when you said physical force is required to disrespect your presence. You said it, not me.

Yes, an act of physical force is necessary to stop my motion against my will. That's more physics. Newton's first law actually. An object in motion will remain in motion until acted on. You keep wanting to reframe my arguments to be about your feelings instead of objective facts about the physical word you exist in.

That's a fucking lie. I didn't say anything about my feelings, I said that disrespect is a feeling and I can disrespect your presence on my property without force. Again, this is an objective fact.

I dont care what you thought was implied you dumb Bingo. That becomes irrelevant the moment I explain to you what I actually meant.

But it WAS relevant the moment you proclaimed that physical force was required to disrespect your presence. I said it wasn't but you argued that it was.

This is not about what you meant; I know what you meant. Again, this is about your use of the word "disrespect" and your insistence that disrespect can ONLY mean physical force in this context.

I'm not trying to. Your confusion doesn't change my argument, moron.

Yes, it does. As I said above, you have yet to acknowledge the fact that I can disrespect your presence on my property without force.

Dumb mother fucker, here's you trying to explain to me, like a fucking moron, that respect is only feeling. Don't act like you're the one who knew better now when your ignorance is on full display, Fucktard...

Don't act now like you knew better then when you said then that physical force is required. Fucktard.

Yes, why would you think I was talking about an action? After all you're a fucking Moron.

Yes, why would you say disrespect can only be physical force if you know different?

I didnt say respect or disrespect the words, could only ever be physical forces you idiot.

Not what I said you idiot. I said: "I'm confused why you argued then that disrespect can only be physical force in this case..."

I was saying a physical force, i.e. a physical action, or an act of disrespect, was necessary to stop my motion. That's simple fucking physics you dipshit.

Nope, that's not what you said. Here it is again dipshit: "Physical force however is needed in order for you to not respect my objective and innate freedom to go where I want..."

No, this is about you pretending that argument was about the word respect and not about how one goes about stopping someone when they are in motion.

I'm not pretending that you incorrectly stated that physical force was necessary to not respect your "freedom" to go where you please, dumbass.

That physical force is needed to physically force you off my property is basic common sense and is not in dispute. What I am disputing is your assertion that physical force is the only way to disrespect your presence there.

I thought you understood respect could be an action. Again I've underestimated your capacity for idiocy.

Don't try to turn this around on me. You are the one who said physical force was needed and required to disrespect.

I didn't forget that respect could be an action. YOU forgot that respect could be a feeling when you said physical force is needed and required to disrespect in this case.

According to law which you admitted previously was a subjective set of ideas and morals, correct? If the foundation you're relying on for your argument is a subjective set of ideas and morals then your argument is ultimatelty subjective.

It is objective that you have the ability to trespass. It is subjective that you have the freedom or the right to trespass.

It's like functions in math. F(X) where where X is The Law and the function of the law is as a subjective set of ideas and morals. That means whenever in your argument you use The Law or the legal system we can substitute the function a subjective set of ideas and morals in its place. So let's look back at your argument above with that in mind. If we do what gets spit out at us is this:

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 according to a subjective set of ideas and morals owns their property and you trespass, you are objectively tresspassing.

See how that works? The legal system at the premise of your ownership is itself a subjective set of ideas and morals. That's what ultimately makes it subjective. Now do you disagree with me because you now think the law or legal system is something other than a subjective set of ideas and morals? Or just because "not uh"?

I'm disagreeing because I have the same abilities you have. That is to say, I have the ability to go where I please as well. What's more, I have the ability to stop going anywhere and claim a piece of property. Your ability doesn't trump mine and your ability does not afford you any special privileges or considerations.

I get that you're a moron who doesn't understand the legal system that you rely on for your premise is a subjective set of ideas and morals even though you yourself said it previously....

Answer the question: Do you understand that I am disagreeing with you?

What's a right in your context? A subjective set of ideas and morals? Why would I need that? All I need to go where I want is the objective physical ability to do so.

Can I assume then that you know you don't have a right to trespass?

Well now youre talking about feelings and what matters to you emotionally as if that's supposed to be my problem.

What feelings?

You feel anyway you like about it guy. The significance of it is entirely subjective. Mine is an objective argument about physics and yours continues to be one about your subjective fee fees.

You're the one who brought up disrespect, not me.

For your feelings argument. There there...

Again, what feelings?

What's complex about it? Your feelings? Everyone's feelings are complex. They're also entirely subjective.

This is a red herring. Nothing I said alluded to feelings in any way.

The premise that it is your property in the first place rest on a bed of subjectivity.

Irrelevant. Ability to walk and talk does not afford you any freedoms, which are subjective as well.

I don't have the biological freedom to move my body however I want in the manner its capable of moving? That's news to me.....

Irrelevant. You asked if I was going to address your argument when I did.

I understand that after all these pages you're actually now confirming my argument, that objective physical force is necessary against people to make subjective claims of ownership, like the Bingo you are....

Not what I said dumbass. But you do understand that your ability to go where you please is insignificant, right?

If all you've been saying is that physical force is necessary to physically remove you from my property, that's like saying shaking someone's hand is necessary for a handshake. So what's your point?

 

[Curried Goats]

First of all, I'm the one who had to point that out to you.

What you pointed out was demonstrably wrong. You said respect was a feeling and balked at the notion of me using it to describe an action.

Secondly, your entire argument is premised on physical force against another person.

Of course it has. It has been from the beginning so why do you keep forgetting that context within my arguments?

But the not-interfering definition of respect that you cited does not suggest that by interfering, you are using physical force.

Of course it does. Interfering is an act. Physical force is an act. They both fall under the category of an action. That's obvious enough to me and maybe because this isn't obvious to you you've gotten confused?

Yes. But as I said, your premise is physical force.

Exactly, so why would you think my argument about you not respecting my natural freedom of mobility was about you willing me off your claimed property with your disrespectful feelings?

Says the guy who insisted that disrespect is solely action, i.e., physically forcing you off my property.

Where did I insist that? What I was insisting was that it takes physical force to move something.

Again, I'm the one who had to remind you that there is a difference between feeling disrespect (or lack of respect) and showing disrespect.

You're the one who said it was feeling and acted confused over me using it to describe an action. Its right there for all to see you Clown.

Yes, it takes physical force to stop you moving (on my property) against your will.

Is it your property though? That's the premise I'm contesting. What objectively makes it your property besides the legal system which you already conceded to be subjective?

Then do it dipshit. You're evading the point that physical force is not required to disrespect your presence on my property. You have yet to acknowledge this.

Not in the manner you mean disrespect here. In the manner I meant respect it's an objective fact that it takes an action of interference to change an objects motion.

Yes, it does. As I said above, you have yet to acknowledge the fact that I can disrespect your presence on my property without force.

I don't even really know what you mean by this. Are you biting your thumb at me while I walk on your land?

Ok. I was never denying that you could bite your thumb at at me sir! (In my best Shakespeare), it just wasn't relevant to my argument in the context of physical force which you repeatedly acknowledge and then dismiss when you want to get into these senseless tangents.

That physical force is needed to physically force you off my property is basic common sense and is not in dispute. What I am disputing is your assertion that physical force is the only way to disrespect your presence there.

Im not arguing against that though. Youre arguing with yourself here.

Don't try to turn this around on me. You are the one who said physical force was needed and required to disrespect.

I'm not running. I don't care about this argument you're having with yourself.....

It is objective that you have the ability to trespass. It is subjective that you have the freedom or the right to trespass.

Is it tresspassing according to an objective, unbiased entity or a subjective one with subjective biases?

I'm disagreeing because I have the same abilities you have. That is to say, I have the ability to go where I please as well.

OK. Im with you so far. No disagreement here.

What's more, I have the ability to stop going anywhere and claim a piece of property.

Also true. Youll get no disagreement from me.

Your ability doesn't trump mine and your ability does not afford you any special privileges or considerations.

Agreed again. So what about your subjective claim means I have to respect it? Let's say I now use my equal ability tell you to go stuff your claim and to continue on as I feel like? What then?

Answer the question: Do you understand that I am disagreeing with you?

I do. Do you understand I disagree with your premise that you objectively own anything. Is the legal system not ultimately a subjective set of ideas and morals?

Can I assume then that you know you don't have a right to trespass?

I don't know what you think a right is. I think a right is something people and governments made up. What do I care what you make up and imagine to be wrong or a violation?

What feelings?

Your subjective set of ideas and morals.

Irrelevant. Ability to walk and talk does not afford you any freedoms, which are subjective as well.

I'm not talking about legal freedoms, moron. Is that the only context in which you understand it?

Not what I said dumbass. But you do understand that your ability to go where you please is insignificant, right?

In what way?

If all you've been saying is that physical force is necessary to physically remove you from my property, that's like saying shaking someone's hand is necessary for a handshake. So what's your point?

That objective physical force is necessary against people to create subjective ownership over things. Now this argument might not have much context for you unless you're a libertarian like dblack claims to be because according to libertarian philosophy force against people is only justified in acts of self defense which would make using force to create subjective ownership over things unjustified.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

What you pointed out was demonstrably wrong. You said respect was a feeling and balked at the notion of me using it to describe an action.

Is respect a feeling? If it is then I'm not wrong, am I? And balking is not the same as disagreeing or saying you were wrong.

Bottom line? I was not demonstrably wrong. And I pointed out soon after saying that that feeling disrespect and showing disrespect are two different things.

Of course it has. It has been from the beginning so why do you keep forgetting that context within my arguments?

I didn't, dumbass.

Of course it does.

No, it does not. You yourself quoted from Webster's - "Please respect their privacy" - and I know that you know that physical force is not needed to not respect someone's privacy. You're stupid but you're not that stupid.

Interfering is an act. Physical force is an act.

But interfering is not necessarily a physical act.

They both fall under the category of an action. That's obvious enough to me and maybe because this isn't obvious to you you've gotten confused?

But your arguments have been about PHYSICAL FORCE you fucking idiot. Do you not know that interfering can happen in any number of ways?

Exactly, so why would you think my argument about you not respecting my natural freedom of mobility was about you willing me off your claimed property with your disrespectful feelings?

Because you said physical force is required, dumbass.

Where did I insist that? What I was insisting was that it takes physical force to move something.

That's been quoted back to you twice now.

You're the one who said it was feeling and acted confused over me using it to describe an action. Its right there for all to see you Clown.

You're the one who said physical force is required. If you tell me that physical force - and only physical force - is required to disrespect your presence on my property when I know better, then of course I'm going to say disrespect is a feeling you clown.

Is it your property though?

Yes.

That's the premise I'm contesting. What objectively makes it your property besides the legal system which you already conceded to be subjective?

What objectively gives you the right to be there?

Not in the manner you mean disrespect here. In the manner I meant respect it's an objective fact that it takes an action of interference to change an objects motion.

In other words, it takes physical force to physically remove a trespasser. So what does this have to do with respect?

I don't even really know what you mean by this. Are you biting your thumb at me while I walk on your land?

That's a stupid question considering that you've already acknowledged that disrespect is also a feeling.

Ok. I was never denying that you could bite your thumb at at me sir! (In my best Shakespeare), it just wasn't relevant to my argument in the context of physical force which you repeatedly acknowledge and then dismiss when you want to get into these senseless tangents.

What you meant is irrelevant to my point. Your assertion that physical force is required to disrespect your presence on my property was patently false. That is what I am addressing and that is relevant to the discussion. It's relevant because if your premise is based on any one single falsehood - even if all other elements are objective, true or logical - then it throws your entire premise out the window.

Im not arguing against that though. Youre arguing with yourself here.

Yes, you are. Again, your own remarks have been quoted back to you twice wherein you said physical force is needed and required to not respect your freedom (ability) to go where you please.

I'm not running. I don't care about this argument you're having with yourself.....

I didn't say you were running, dumbass. I said not to turn it around on me.

Is it tresspassing according to an objective, unbiased entity or a subjective one with subjective biases?

Are you now arguing you have the right to be there?

OK. Im with you so far. No disagreement here.

Also true. Youll get no disagreement from me.

Agreed again. So what about your subjective claim means I have to respect it?

By the same token, what about your claim means I have to respect yours?

Let's say I now use my equal ability tell you to go stuff your claim and to continue on as I feel like? What then?

Again, are you now saying you have the right to be there?

I do. Do you understand I disagree with your premise that you objectively own anything. Is the legal system not ultimately a subjective set of ideas and morals?

Irrelevant. The point is your propensity to allege confusion or stupidity any time someone disagrees with you.

I don't know what you think a right is. I think a right is something people and governments made up. What do I care what you make up and imagine to be wrong or a violation?

So then, you don't have a right to be there. Is that what you're saying?

Your subjective set of ideas and morals.

Bullshit. I said: "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."
You said: "Well now youre talking about feelings and what matters to you emotionally..."
So what feelings, exactly, was I talking about here?

I'm not talking about legal freedoms, moron. Is that the only context in which you understand it?

Do you not remember me asking you about this for clarification? I asked you what you meant by "freedom" and if you were referring to the ability to go where you please.

So, I can assume then that you are saying you do not have the right or legal freedom to trespass, yes?

In what way?

In a way that it is not significant, dumbass.

That objective physical force is necessary against people to create subjective ownership over things. Now this argument might not have much context for you unless you're a libertarian like dblack claims to be because according to libertarian philosophy force against people is only justified in acts of self defense which would make using force to create subjective ownership over things unjustified.

Isn't "unjustified" subjective? Also, you own your home and property, don't you?

Now let us consider why you used the terms you did. Those being "respect", "disrespect" and "freedom". If all you were doing was saying that physical force is needed to physically force you off my property, well, tell me something I don't know. Any idiot knows that.

But the words and terms you used say a lot about what's actually behind your arguments. What's actually behind your arguments is this notion of sharing wealth and resources. I say this because you mentioned the word "resources" a few times in this discussion. But what do resources have to do with forcing a trespasser off my property? Absolutely nothing. Unless, that is, the implication is that you feel you have some kind of right of access to my resources.

As to the word "disrespect"? That's an odd term to use to simply convey physical force is required to physically force someone. The implication here is that by possessing the ability to go where you please, I should respect this ability by allowing you the "freedom" to trespass. And that's why you used that term.

Any act of disrespect stems from the feeling of disrespect. Why would we feel compelled to commit an act of disrespect if we feel respect? So, you knew full well when you used the terms "disrespect" or "not respect" in this context that you were referring to the feeling of disrespect, i.e., lack of personal regard or consideration on my part for your ability (freedom) to go where you please, rather than the physical act of removing you from my property.

In short, I don't believe you initially meant "disrespect" as an action at all. Or rather, for you, the emphasis was on the feeling.

I understand your point about what you meant, but for me, your choice of words implies that there is more to your argument than just "Physical force is required to physically force someone off property". It implies some kind of right or freedom to be there. The problem is that you don't. Having the ability to go where you please does not mean you have the freedom to go where you please.

 

[Curried Goats]

No, it does not. You yourself quoted from Webster's - "Please respect their privacy" - and I know that you know that physical force is not needed to not respect someone's privacy. You're stupid but you're not that stupid.

My point here wasn't that interfering was a physical force but that it was an action.

But interfering is not necessarily a physical act.

Nope, but it is an action.

But your arguments have been about PHYSICAL FORCE you fucking idiot. Do you not know that interfering can happen in any number of ways?

Because you said physical force is required, dumbass.

Yep. Physical force is required to stop an object in motion. Thats physics. That was my meaning.

That's been quoted back to you twice now.

You can quote it back to me all you like and I'm telling you that argument is about physics and not the other ways in which you can use the word respect.

You're the one who said physical force is required. If you tell me that physical force - and only physical force - is required to disrespect your presence on my property when I know better, then of course I'm going to say disrespect is a feeling you clown.

How else do you stop an object in motion?

What objectively gives you the right to be there?

Tell me what a right is first. I never said I had a right to be there. I said I have the objective physical capability to go where I please. I still don't know what you think a right is or why you think I require it.

In other words, it takes physical force to physically remove a trespasser. So what does this have to do with respect?

What's a trespasser? Is that an objective observation or made from someone biased to a subjective set of ideas or morals?

What you meant is irrelevant to my point. Your assertion that physical force is required to disrespect your presence on my property was patently false.

What I meant is that physical force is required to stop an object in motion. Whats false about that?

That is what I am addressing and that is relevant to the discussion. It's relevant because if your premise is based on any one single falsehood - even if all other elements are objective, true or logical - then it throws your entire premise out the window.

You're misunderstanding of what my argument means does not invalidate it.

My argument is about how physical force is required to stop an object in motion. Have you disproven that anywhere?

Are you now arguing you have the right to be there?

Whats a right? Im telling you i have the objective ability to walk where ever I set my mind to walk. (Other than on water or in space or the like... and I'm really just trying to future proof you making some three page side argument about how I can't walk on water if I want to.... )

By the same token, what about your claim means I have to respect yours?

How do you mean respect here and respect my what? My argument isn't about me making any claims of ownership, it's about objectively describing what ownership entails.

Again, are you now saying you have the right to be there?

I'm saying again that I don't know what rights you're talking about. Describe them and why you think I need them.

So then, you don't have a right to be there. Is that what you're saying?

Again what's a right and why do you think I need it to exercise my objective physical ability to walk?

Do you not remember me asking you about this for clarification? I asked you what you meant by "freedom" and if you were referring to the ability to go where you please.

Yep. So are you asking if I have the ability to walk? Because I do. I have full normal human function of my legs. That's what I meant by freedom.

So, I can assume then that you are saying you do not have the right or legal freedom to trespass, yes?

I keep repeating that I want to know what you think those things are.

Isn't "unjustified" subjective? Also, you own your home and property, don't you?

Yep. That really isn't the point though. Like the religious who have notions about what is or isn't a sin this is their stated belief system so I'm arguing with in it confines. Within the mechanism of that belief system force to establish property rights and ownership over a thing would be unjust because it isn't in objective act of self defense of your actual physical being.

Now let us consider why you used the terms you did. Those being "respect", "disrespect" and "freedom". If all you were doing was saying that physical force is needed to physically force you off my property, well, tell me something I don't know. Any idiot knows that.

Hey, I didn't tell you to turn that simple argument into this.....

Like I said, me and dblack had this argument in about four lines and two exchanges.....

But the words and terms you used say a lot about what's actually behind your arguments. What's actually behind your arguments is this notion of sharing wealth and resources. I say this because you mentioned the word "resources" a few times in this discussion. But what do resources have to do with forcing a trespasser off my property? Absolutely nothing. Unless, that is, the implication is that you feel you have some kind of right of access to my resources.

Are they your resources though? It's that premise I'm challenging. They are objectively resources. That's it.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

My point here wasn't that interfering was a physical force but that it was an action.

You've been harping about a specific action: physical force. So why is interfering being an action relevant here?

Nope, but it is an action.

And?

Yep. Physical force is required to stop an object in motion. Thats physics. That was my meaning.

But that's not what you initially said. You said physical force is required to disrespect...

Beyond the obvious fact: that physical force is required to physically remove someone from your property, what's your point?

You can quote it back to me all you like and I'm telling you that argument is about physics and not the other ways in which you can use the word respect.

So now disrespect is suddenly in the realm of physics? When did that happen?

How else do you stop an object in motion?

With force, of course. But what does that have to do with respect?

Tell me what a right is first.

Tell me why removing you is disrespect.

I never said I had a right to be there. I said I have the objective physical capability to go where I please. I still don't know what you think a right is or why you think I require it.

So you have the physical capability to go where you please. So what? What does any of this have to do with respect or freedom, especially if disrespect represents an action and freedom represents ability?

What's a trespasser? Is that an objective observation or made from someone biased to a subjective set of ideas or morals?

Irrelevant. Use whatever word you want. The point is, it takes physical force to remove someone you don't want on your property.

What I meant is that physical force is required to stop an object in motion. Whats false about that?

Then why didn't you say physical force is required to stop an object in motion? When did "respect" and "disrespect" start being used in the context of the laws of physics? What physicist says "If a body is at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line, it will remain at rest or keep moving in a straight line at constant speed unless it is disrespected by a force."?

You're misunderstanding of what my argument means does not invalidate it.

It invalidates the word you used, idiot.

As I said at the end of my last post, the act of disrespect stems from the feeling of disrespect or lack of respect. The word is defined as a feeling of regard or esteem for another person, institution, object, etc..

My argument is about how physical force is required to stop an object in motion. Have you disproven that anywhere?

I've proven that physical force is not required to feel disrespect.

Whats a right? Im telling you i have the objective ability to walk where ever I set my mind to walk. (Other than on water or in space or the like... and I'm really just trying to future proof you making some three page side argument about how I can't walk on water if I want to.... )

I'll take that as a yes. Now that we've established you don't have a right to be there, how is removing you disrespecting your ability to go where you please? Why is it even worth mentioning?

How do you mean respect here and respect my what?

It's your word, dumbass. You tell me.

My argument isn't about me making any claims of ownership, it's about objectively describing what ownership entails.

What does that have to do with your ability to walk and talk?

I'm saying again that I don't know what rights you're talking about. Describe them and why you think I need them.

Are you now saying you don't need rights?

Again what's a right and why do you think I need it to exercise my objective physical ability to walk?

Let's just agree at this point that "rights" are off the table.

Yep. So are you asking if I have the ability to walk? Because I do. I have full normal human function of my legs. That's what I meant by freedom.

Irrelevant. You asked if law is the only context I understood freedom. Apparently you forgot that I asked you then what you meant by freedom. Dumbass.

I keep repeating that I want to know what you think those things are.

So you don't have the right or freedom to trespass. Got it.

Yep. That really isn't the point though. Like the religious who have notions about what is or isn't a sin this is their stated belief system so I'm arguing with in it confines. Within the mechanism of that belief system force to establish property rights and ownership over a thing would be unjust because it isn't in objective act of self defense of your actual physical being.

You're using the subjective term "unjustified" to describe using force to create subjective ownership over things. Which means that not only is ownership ultimately meaningless, so is your opinion of it.

Hey, I didn't tell you to turn that simple argument into this.....

You complicated the issue with the words and terms you used. Saying "disrespect" in the context of the law of motion for starters.

Like I said, me and dblack had this argument in about four lines and two exchanges.....

Good for you. What's that supposed to mean to me?

Are they your resources though? It's that premise I'm challenging. They are objectively resources. That's it.

Irrelevant. The entire premise of your argument here is rooted in your subjective notions of sharing wealth and resources.

You're pointing out the subjectivity of things to reinforce your own subjective ideas.

 

[Curried Goats]

You've been harping about a specific action: physical force. So why is interfering being an action relevant here?


And?


But that's not what you initially said. You said physical force is required to disrespect...

Beyond the obvious fact: that physical force is required to physically remove someone from your property, what's your point?


So now disrespect is suddenly in the realm of physics? When did that happen?


With force, of course. But what does that have to do with respect?


Tell me why removing you is disrespect.


So you have the physical capability to go where you please. So what? What does any of this have to do with respect or freedom, especially if disrespect represents an action and freedom represents ability?


Irrelevant. Use whatever word you want. The point is, it takes physical force to remove someone you don't want on your property.


Then why didn't you say physical force is required to stop an object in motion? When did "respect" and "disrespect" start being used in the context of the laws of physics? What physicist says "If a body is at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line, it will remain at rest or keep moving in a straight line at constant speed unless it is disrespected by a force."?

First.... look at all this crying you're doing over your misunderstanding....

I continued using respect probably (its been a while so bare with me) because I was talking about respecting claims. I simply carried it over to the next portion of my argument that physical force was required against me to not respect my freedom (ability) to go wherever I wanted. Granted it's probably an unusual word choice but you didn't need to devolve to this once I explained to you want it meant.

It invalidates the word you used, idiot.

It doesnt, idiot. I can use whatever words I want to convey whatever meaning I want. You keep crying on and on about my word choice when it's my meaning you should actually be trying to invalidate. You have no say over my word choice. All you can do is cry about it.

As I said at the end of my last post, the act of disrespect stems from the feeling of disrespect or lack of respect. The word is defined as a feeling of regard or esteem for another person, institution, object, etc..

I've proven that physical force is not required to feel disrespect.

Who was saying otherwise?

You're just arguing with yourself here. My argument wasn't about what disrespect means.

I'll take that as a yes. Now that we've established you don't have a right to be there, how is removing you disrespecting your ability to go where you please? Why is it even worth mentioning?

Why would you take that as a yes? I'm still waiting for you to define what a right is. I still don't know what you're talking about.

It's your word, dumbass. You tell me.

No..... words don't belong to me dipshit. This is your question, you define what you mean by respect here.....

How are you confused by that?

What does that have to do with your ability to walk and talk?

Because those abilities are objective. I can demonstrate them. You can observe them. How do you objectively demonstrate a right? Or ownership? How am I able to make any objective observations about them? Those things are subjective.

Are you now saying you don't need rights?

I'm still waiting for you to define rights and explain to me why you think I need them.

Let's just agree at this point that "rights" are off the table.

Why do you keep trying to make agreements on my behalf for the sake of your argument?

Irrelevant. You asked if law is the only context I understood freedom. Apparently you forgot that I asked you then what you meant by freedom. Dumbass.

I keep telling you it means ability to decide for myself where I want to go and to go there. Now given that I've told you this repeatedly let's plug that context back into your original statement.

Irrelevant. Ability to walk and talk doesnt afford you any freedoms, which are subjective as well.

I responded that I'm wasn't talking about legal freedoms. I agree legal anything is subjective. My ability to walk and talk is objective.

So you don't have the right or freedom to trespass. Got it.

What's a right? What does freedom mean in this context? Am I objectively trespassing or trespassing according to some opinion?

You're using the subjective term "unjustified" to describe using force to create subjective ownership over things. Which means that not only is ownership ultimately meaningless, so is your opinion of it.

What?

I'm not using "unjust" to describe anything. That is libertarian philosophy. Do you remember how you argued the ways in which the law was objective? Well this is like that. Libertarian philosophy says that force against others is unjust other than in acts of self defense. I would agree that unjust is still ultimately subjective but again, I'm simply arguing within their philosophical framework to demonstrate to them that even under it, private ownership of anything would be unjust (unless they happen to make agreements to that end with every single person or group who happens by). Simply forcing people off these subjective claims of property however is objectively not an act of force in self defense of your person.

You complicated the issue with the words and terms you used. Saying "disrespect" in the context of the law of motion for starters.

It's not like I did it on purpose. I have no control of what you're capable of understanding. I'm still not sure you understand the difference between the objective and the subjective....

Good for you. What's that supposed to mean to me?

Irrelevant. The entire premise of your argument here is rooted in your subjective notions of sharing wealth and resources.

Is it? What do my feelings on how government and society should operate have to do with this argument? They're two separate issues. One is an objective argument about how force against others is necessary to claim and maintain ownership over parts of the Earth and its resources and the other is an entirely subjective one about my feelings.

See... you still don't understand the difference, do you?

You're pointing out the subjectivity of things to reinforce your own subjective ideas.

No. I'm pointing out the subjectivity of things to disillusion dblack of the notion that he and libertarians are above the fray.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

First.... look at all this crying you're doing over your misunderstanding....

I didn't misunderstand that you said physical force was required to disrespect your freedom to go where you please.

You're saying now that you meant using physical force. Okay, fine. But I'm still focused on the word you chose to use because I think it's an odd word choice to convey physical force. On the surface it's an odd choice because I believe that under the surface, you actually meant lack of respect or consideration for your freedom to go where you please, not your physical removal.

I continued using respect probably (its been a while so bare with me) because I was talking about respecting claims. I simply carried it over to the next portion of my argument that physical force was required against me to not respect my freedom (ability) to go wherever I wanted. Granted it's probably an unusual word choice but you didn't need to devolve to this once I explained to you want it meant.

Problem is, I don't entirely believe you when you say it referred to your physical removal. As I said above, I believe you meant "disrespect" according to the common understanding of the core meaning of the word: lack of respect, regard or consideration.

It doesnt, idiot.

It does, moron.

Let's look back at what you actually said. The term you used was actually not "disrespect" but rather, "...physical force is required to not respect...". That may have been due to my misremembering the actual words and that was my mistake. But in any case, the actual words you used do not convey action, they convey a lack of respect. That's it.

So basically you were saying that physical force is required for me to lack respect for your freedom to go where you please.

I can use whatever words I want to convey whatever meaning I want. You keep crying on and on about my word choice when it's my meaning you should actually be trying to invalidate. You have no say over my word choice. All you can do is cry about it.

You can use whatever words you want to convey whatever meaning you want. And you did convey exactly what you wanted to convey. The problem here is that what you wanted and meant to say is not what you say you meant to say. What I mean is that you meant "respect" in its common understanding as a feeling of regard or consideration, not as an action.

Who was saying otherwise?

You.

You're just arguing with yourself here. My argument wasn't about what disrespect means.

No shit, dumbass. Your argument is not about what disrespect means but mine is.

Why would you take that as a yes?

Because you asked me what a right is. If you don't know then I can only conclude you're not saying you have a right to be there.

I'm still waiting for you to define what a right is. I still don't know what you're talking about.

Yes you do. If you didn't then you would not have framed your argument in terms of respect.

No..... words don't belong to me dipshit. This is your question, you define what you mean by respect here.....

How are you confused by that?

I don't think I'm the one confused here. My comment about respecting claims was a direct response to your comment about respecting claims. When I repeat the word you used, you ask me to define it.

Jesus what an idiot.

Because those abilities are objective. I can demonstrate them. You can observe them.

And? How is it that merely having the ability to walk and talk grants you some kind of privilege?

How do you objectively demonstrate a right? Or ownership? How am I able to make any objective observations about them? Those things are subjective.

How do you objectively demonstrate you have the right to someone's property?

I'm still waiting for you to define rights and explain to me why you think I need them.

I'll take that as a yes.

Why do you keep trying to make agreements on my behalf for the sake of your argument?

"Let's just agree..." is an offer, dumbass. Either agree or don't.

I keep telling you it means ability to decide for myself where I want to go and to go there. Now given that I've told you this repeatedly let's plug that context back into your original statement.

Irrelevant. Ability to walk and talk doesnt afford you any freedoms, which are subjective as well.

I responded that I'm wasn't talking about legal freedoms. I agree legal anything is subjective. My ability to walk and talk is objective.

Again, irrelevant. That particular exchange was about you forgetting that I asked what you meant by "freedom" when you first said it because you asked if law was the only context I understood the word. I was not asking for another explanation, dipshit.

What's a right? What does freedom mean in this context? Am I objectively trespassing or trespassing according to some opinion?

Do you objectively have the right to be there just because you can walk?

What?

Exactly the response I expected because you don't understand the complexities and intricacies of objectivism/subjectivism.

I'm not using "unjust" to describe anything. That is libertarian philosophy. Do you remember how you argued the ways in which the law was objective? Well this is like that. Libertarian philosophy says that force against others is unjust other than in acts of self defense. I would agree that unjust is still ultimately subjective but again, I'm simply arguing within their philosophical framework to demonstrate to them that even under it, private ownership of anything would be unjust (unless they happen to make agreements to that end with every single person or group who happens by). Simply forcing people off these subjective claims of property however is objectively not an act of force in self defense of your person.

Why do you keep bringing up this shit about libertarian beliefs? It is not what you and I are discussing.

It's not like I did it on purpose. I have no control of what you're capable of understanding. I'm still not sure you understand the difference between the objective and the subjective....

And there it is again: Disagreement = Confusion/Stupidity. You always fall back on this "You're confused about subjectivism" ploy when you have no proper response.

You used the word "respect" in the context of laws of motion. You don't remember your own words half the time so you end up contradicting yourself. You are just like a lot of religionists in that sense.

Is it?

I think it is, yes.

What do my feelings on how government and society should operate have to do with this argument?

What do resources have to do with your argument?

They're two separate issues. One is an objective argument about how force against others is necessary to claim and maintain ownership over parts of the Earth and its resources and the other is an entirely subjective one about my feelings.

See... you still don't understand the difference, do you?

Then why did you bring up resources?

No. I'm pointing out the subjectivity of things to disillusion dblack of the notion that he and libertarians are above the fray.

I don't see why. That is a sentiment I figured you could identify with since you seem to think you're above everyone here.

 

[Curried Goats]

I didn't misunderstand that you said physical force was required to disrespect your freedom to go where you please.

You clearly misunderstood what it meant.

You're saying now that you meant using physical force. Okay, fine. But I'm still focused on the word you chose to use because I think it's an odd word choice to convey physical force. On the surface it's an odd choice because I believe that under the surface, you actually meant lack of respect or consideration for your freedom to go where you please, not your physical removal.

Ok. You feel free to imagine and fantasize about whatever you feel like.

Problem is, I don't entirely believe you when you say it referred to your physical removal. As I said above, I believe you meant "disrespect" according to the common understanding of the core meaning of the word: lack of respect, regard or consideration.

That's a you problem. I have no control over what you make believe. My argument has always been about physical force being used to further subjective ends.

It does, moron.

Only in your imagination.

Let's look back at what you actually said. The term you used was actually not "disrespect" but rather, "...physical force is required to not respect...". That may have been due to my misremembering the actual words and that was my mistake. But in any case, the actual words you used do not convey action, they convey a lack of respect. That's it.

I've already explained to you what they were meant to convey. If you want to get out your secret decoder ring and white board and yarn to figure out what it really meant have at it. That could be fun.

So basically you were saying that physical force is required for me to lack respect for your freedom to go where you please.

I was saying physical force is required to stop an object in motion.

You can use whatever words you want to convey whatever meaning you want. And you did convey exactly what you wanted to convey. The problem here is that what you wanted and meant to say is not what you say you meant to say. What I mean is that you meant "respect" in its common understanding as a feeling of regard or consideration, not as an action.

I meant what I meant not what you mean. You mean what you mean and not what I mean. Know what I mean?

You.


No shit, dumbass. Your argument is not about what disrespect means but mine is.

Sure, but who are you having that argument with? It's not me. Disrespect can mean whatever you want it to mean. Know what I mean?

Because you asked me what a right is. If you don't know then I can only conclude you're not saying you have a right to be there.

Why would that be your conclusion?

I still don't know what a right is. You haven't defined it for the sake of your argument so I have no way of knowing if I have it or if I don't or if I even need it.

Yes you do. If you didn't then you would not have framed your argument in terms of respect.

Of course I know what I'm talking about when I frame arguments but this is your framework. My argument never mentioned rights, yours does. You're the one who needs to explain what they are. I've spent over three pages now trying to explain to you what my argument meant and you're still doing weirdo conspiracies about it.

I don't think I'm the one confused here. My comment about respecting claims was a direct response to your comment about respecting claims. When I repeat the word you used, you ask me to define it.

Because you may be using it differently than I was. That's how words work guy.

Jesus what an idiot.


And? How is it that merely having the ability to walk and talk grants you some kind of privilege?

What privilege are you referring to? I only said biology has given me the ability to walk and the ability of independent thought.

How do you objectively demonstrate you have the right to someone's property?

What's a right? I still don't know what that is. And is it someone's property? Why do you argue like I have to agree to that premise?

I'll take that as a yes.

You take the easy way a lot don't you? It's easier to pretend and make believe I mean something else or that I agree with you when all I am asking for is clarification.

"Let's just agree..." is an offer, dumbass. Either agree or don't.

Was that supposed to be an offer? I still don't know what I'm being offered. Can you clarify that for me?

Again, irrelevant. That particular exchange was about you forgetting that I asked what you meant by "freedom" when you first said it because you asked if law was the only context I understood the word. I was not asking for another explanation, dipshit.

Well now I'm lost about what you're even talking about....

You said, ability to walk and talk doesnt afford you any freedoms, which are subjective as well.

You are talking about freedom in a different context here than I was. I was never talking about legal freedoms.

Do you objectively have the right to be there just because you can walk?

What's a right? Does anyone have objective rights or are they inherently subjective?

Exactly the response I expected because you don't understand the complexities and intricacies of objectivism/subjectivism.

I don't understand the nature of your questions until you explain them to me.

Why do you keep bringing up this shit about libertarian beliefs? It is not what you and I are discussing.

It is what I was discussing when you interjected yourself.

And there it is again: Disagreement = Confusion/Stupidity. You always fall back on this "You're confused about subjectivism" ploy when you have no proper response.

You clearly are since it appears you've decided to try to fashion a counter argument based on legal rights which are ultimately subjective. Why do you think I need your subjective permission to do anything?

You used the word "respect" in the context of laws of motion. You don't remember your own words half the time so you end up contradicting yourself. You are just like a lot of religionists in that sense.

I knew respect could mean to not interfere with and that it takes an act of interference to change an objects motion.

I think it is, yes.


What do resources have to do with your argument?

Because objectively that's what everything is. Resources we can use to further our subjective ends.

Its perfectly natural and understandable that people would want to horde or claim resources for themselves. It's just that the only natural mechanism humans have at their disposal for doing so is the use of force.

Then why did you bring up resources?

Because that's what private ownership is about.

I don't see why. That is a sentiment I figured you could identify with since you seem to think you're above everyone here.

Smarter certainly but my interests are still self interests just like everyone else's.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You clearly misunderstood what it meant.

I don’t think I misunderstood at all. That’s what I’ve been saying. I think you meant it in the context of a feeling of lack of consideration.

Ok. You feel free to imagine and fantasize about whatever you feel like.

It’s the only explanation that makes any sense to me.

I’ve been sparring with you long enough to know you’re not just stating the obvious - that physical force is required to physically remove someone - you attach some kind of significance to it.

You can’t come right out and say it’s a right because that would be subjective and that’s why you dodge the question by asking me to define it. At the same time you frame your argument to where the property owner is the aggressor or the interposer.

That's a you problem. I have no control over what you make believe. My argument has always been about physical force being used to further subjective ends.

Okay, why is this significant?

Only in your imagination.

Okay.

I've already explained to you what they were meant to convey. If you want to get out your secret decoder ring and white board and yarn to figure out what it really meant have at it. That could be fun.

Okay, but your original words still do not convey action.

I was saying physical force is required to stop an object in motion.

Not by your words, you weren’t.

I meant what I meant not what you mean. You mean what you mean and not what I mean. Know what I mean?

Sure, but who are you having that argument with? It's not me. Disrespect can mean whatever you want it to mean. Know what I mean?

All this tells me is that I can use the word “disrespect” to mean chopping wood or anything I can imagine.

Why would that be your conclusion?

Didn’t I just say that?

I still don't know what a right is. You haven't defined it for the sake of your argument so I have no way of knowing if I have it or if I don't or if I even need it.

It wasn’t an argument, dumbass, it was a question.

Of course I know what I'm talking about when I frame arguments but this is your framework. My argument never mentioned rights, yours does.

No, my argument does not mention rights. Again, it was a question. As for your argument not mentioning rights, it didn’t. But your use of the words “not respect” and “freedom” in the context of physical force is why I asked.

I’m not going to play a guessing game with you. Either you think you have some sort of right or privilege to be there or you don’t. If you do, I’m curious to know what you thinks grants you this right or privilege. If you don’t then you’re not telling me anything I don’t know; that physical force is needed to remove someone from one’s property.

You're the one who needs to explain what they are. I've spent over three pages now trying to explain to you what my argument meant and you're still doing weirdo conspiracies about it.

“Conspiracy”? Is there somebody else here?

Because you may be using it differently than I was. That's how words work guy.

Again, it was your word and context, not mine. You asked why you should respect my subjective claim to ownership and I asked why I should respect yours. Remember? My response was to repeat your word in the same context you did.

What privilege are you referring to? I only said biology has given me the ability to walk and the ability of independent thought.

So, no privilege then. If that’s the case then I don’t see your point.

What's a right? I still don't know what that is. And is it someone's property? Why do you argue like I have to agree to that premise?

You tell me. You’re the one who brought up resources.

You take the easy way a lot don't you? It's easier to pretend and make believe I mean something else or that I agree with you when all I am asking for is clarification.

Again, it was a question, not an assertion or accusation. Only you can say whether you think you have some kind of right or not. If you don’t think you do then just so. It doesn’t have to be any more complicated than that.

Was that supposed to be an offer? I still don't know what I'm being offered. Can you clarify that for me?

Agree that rights are off the table or don’t. If you don’t then I’ll keep asking.

Well now I'm lost about what you're even talking about....

Of course you are.

You said, ability to walk and talk doesnt afford you any freedoms, which are subjective as well.

You are talking about freedom in a different context here than I was. I was never talking about legal freedoms.

Irrelevant. You asked if I only understood freedom in the context of law. You forgot that I had asked you then what you meant by “freedom”.

What's a right? Does anyone have objective rights or are they inherently subjective?

So you have no rights in this case, correct?

I don't understand the nature of your questions until you explain them to me.

That’s just an excuse not to answer.

It is what I was discussing when you interjected yourself.

It’s not what you and I are discussing.

You clearly are since it appears you've decided to try to fashion a counter argument based on legal rights which are ultimately subjective. Why do you think I need your subjective permission to do anything?

I didn’t say you did. For the third time, it was a question.

I knew respect could mean to not interfere with and that it takes an act of interference to change an objects motion.

So why is this significant? What’s your point?

Because objectively that's what everything is. Resources we can use to further our subjective ends.

Resources have nothing to do with physical force to physically remove someone from your property. Unless resources are the point of your argument. Are you saying all this is about resources?

Its perfectly natural and understandable that people would want to horde or claim resources for themselves. It's just that the only natural mechanism humans have at their disposal for doing so is the use of force.

You’ve been talking about traipsing around on private property. Are you talking about private property or something like farmland that actually harbors resources?

Because that's what private ownership is about.

No it’s not. My property has no resources other than pecan trees and I didn’t buy it for that or any other supposed resources.

Smarter certainly but my interests are still self interests just like everyone else's.

You don’t even know what a right is.

 

[Curried Goats]

I don’t think I misunderstood at all. That’s what I’ve been saying. I think you meant it in the context of a feeling of lack of consideration.

I understand that you've been fantasizing otherwise but fantasies and make believe aren't rational arguments.

It’s the only explanation that makes any sense to me.

I’ve been sparring with you long enough to know you’re not just stating the obvious - that physical force is required to physically remove someone - you attach some kind of significance to it.

It's libertarians who have attached significance to whether force against another person is being used in self defense or not. I keep trying to explain to you that my arguments about force are in that context and you keep telling me it's irrelevant as you fantasize about whatever this is.

You can’t come right out and say it’s a right because that would be subjective and that’s why you dodge the question by asking me to define it. At the same time you frame your argument to where the property owner is the aggressor or the interposer.

I'm not even talking about rights. You're the one who keeps bringing them up guy. To libertarian philosophy there are legal rights that may or may not be unjust depending on whether or not they violate the principle of natural law that states force is only ever just in acts of self defense. I mentioned Bastiat earlier because he sums it up nicely not only in calling The Law, force but also calling just law, the collective organization of the individual right to self defense.

My entire thesis here is about how force to create and protect property rights violates this principle of justice according to libertarian philosophy, not my philosophy. Their philosophy makes sense to proponents of natural law because they believe in some sort of objective morality and objective right and wrong. I do not.

Okay, why is this significant?

Okay.

Okay, but your original words still do not convey action.


Not by your words, you weren’t.

They do because I'm telling you they do. I don't really know want me to do when you make believe something else. I'm here for rational discussion, not your fights of fancy. That, I'm simply going to point and laugh and make fun of.

All this tells me is that I can use the word “disrespect” to mean chopping wood or anything I can imagine.

Sure. It might be confusing at first depending on how you word it but I'm not going to argue with you over your own words. That would be weird.

Didn’t I just say that?


It wasn’t an argument, dumbass, it was a question.

Ok, it's your question then, you explain what you mean.

No, my argument does not mention rights. Again, it was a question. As for your argument not mentioning rights, it didn’t. But your use of the words “not respect” and “freedom” in the context of physical force is why I asked.

Your question is about something you nor I have previously discussed so why should you expect me to know what you're talking about or how to answer your question without explanation?

I’m not going to play a guessing game with you. Either you think you have some sort of right or privilege to be there or you don’t.

You're the one who wants me to guess what you mean by that. I think I have the ability to walk places. Is there some reason you think I also need a right or privilege?

If you do, I’m curious to know what you thinks grants you this right or privilege. If you don’t then you’re not telling me anything I don’t know; that physical force is needed to remove someone from one’s property.

What makes it your property? My argument is that a subjective set of ideas and morals does. And so forcing me off this property would be you confirming my argument that force against people is necessary in order to create and protect subjective notions of ownership.

“Conspiracy”? Is there somebody else here?


Again, it was your word and context, not mine. You asked why you should respect my subjective claim to ownership and I asked why I should respect yours. Remember? My response was to repeat your word in the same context you did.

Should you respect my what? For the sake of my argument I'm not making any claims of ownership.

So, no privilege then. If that’s the case then I don’t see your point.

I don't see your point because you haven't explained why I need this privilege to do anything. I can explain to you why you need the ability to walk for you to be able to walk, because I understand what I'm talking about. I dont undertsand the point you're trying to make here.

You tell me. You’re the one who brought up resources.

I thought I did just explain it to you. What are you still confused about? Everything around you is a resource of potential use to you. What gives any one else the right to deny you them? I can answer that one for you, it's the force of law. The ability to bring superior collective force against people is what gives societies and individuals of societies this ability they call a legal right.

Again, it was a question, not an assertion or accusation. Only you can say whether you think you have some kind of right or not. If you don’t think you do then just so. It doesn’t have to be any more complicated than that.

I'm saying legal rights are subjective and needing someone or some societies subjective permission least they use force against me is proving my argument. Are you trying to prove my argument or disprove it?

Agree that rights are off the table or don’t. If you don’t then I’ll keep asking.

Off the table of what? Are or just asking questions or attempting an argument?

Of course you are.

Irrelevant. You asked if I only understood freedom in the context of law. You forgot that I had asked you then what you meant by “freedom”.

If you meant in terms of legal rights then why don't you try explaining what those are?

So you have no rights in this case, correct?

What rights?

That’s just an excuse not to answer.

I don't know how to answer because you can't explain the relevance.

It’s not what you and I are discussing.


I didn’t say you did. For the third time, it was a question.

Who's relevance you're reluctant to explain, why?

So why is this significant? What’s your point?


Resources have nothing to do with physical force to physically remove someone from your property. Unless resources are the point of your argument. Are you saying all this is about resources?

What makes anything anyone's property to begin with?

You’ve been talking about traipsing around on private property. Are you talking about private property or something like farmland that actually harbors resources?

I've been talking about walking around the earth and how force against me is necessary for the people who want to claim some of Earth as their private property. You want to skip all that and argue from the premise that some of the Earth is your private property without explaining how we even got here or acknowledging that it's the force of law that protects this legal claim.

No it’s not. My property has no resources other than pecan trees and I didn’t buy it for that or any other supposed resources.

Everything is a resource, not just the tree.

You don’t even know what a right is.

You won't explain it for the sake of your own argument.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I understand that you've been fantasizing otherwise but fantasies and make believe aren't rational arguments.

Saying that physical force is needed and required to not respect your ability to go where you please is fantasy and not a rational argument.

It's libertarians who have attached significance to whether force against another person is being used in self defense or not. I keep trying to explain to you that my arguments about force are in that context and you keep telling me it's irrelevant as you fantasize about whatever this is.

You’re the one who said physical force was required to not respect your ability to go where you please and this is what I’m contesting.

You’ve made the point many times that physical force is required to reinforce a subjective claim to ownership.
Property ownership and control of resources therein has been the foundation of your argument the entire time. Self defense or any other libertarian ideals was never the topic between you and me.

I'm not even talking about rights. You're the one who keeps bringing them up guy.

And you are the one who said physical force is needed to not respect your ability to go where you please.

Not only is this patently false, your word choice of “not respect” implies much more than your subsequent “clarifications” ever did. Your clarifications make no sense in light of your word choice.

To libertarian philosophy there are legal rights that may or may not be unjust depending on whether or not they violate the principle of natural law that states force is only ever just in acts of self defense. I mentioned Bastiat earlier because he sums it up nicely not only in calling The Law, force but also calling just law, the collective organization of the individual right to self defense.

I don’t care. This is about your claim that physical force is required.

My entire thesis here is about how force to create and protect property rights violates this principle of justice according to libertarian philosophy, not my philosophy. Their philosophy makes sense to proponents of natural law because they believe in some sort of objective morality and objective right and wrong. I do not.

This may or may not be true but my contention is with your claim about physical force. Whatever you have going on with libertarians has nothing to do with what I am arguing against.

They do because I'm telling you they do.

But your words do not.

I don't really know want me to do when you make believe something else. I'm here for rational discussion, not your fights of fancy. That, I'm simply going to point and laugh and make fun of.

If you want rational discussion then answer the question: Why is physical force to remove someone from property significant? Why is it worth mentioning and discussing and what meaning does it have for you beyond the obvious; that physically removing someone takes physical force?

Sure. It might be confusing at first depending on how you word it but I'm not going to argue with you over your own words. That would be weird.

It would not only be confusing, it would grammatically make no sense. Just as “not respect” grammatically makes no sense in the context of an action. To not respect something is not an action in any sense or context.

Ok, it's your question then, you explain what you mean.

The question is asking YOU what you mean.

If you don’t think you have a right, say so. If you think you do, explain why. Beyond that, all I can say is, quit pretending you don’t know what a right is.

Your question is about something you nor I have previously discussed so why should you expect me to know what you're talking about or how to answer your question without explanation?

We are talking about you being on my property and me forcing you off. So either you’re a fucking idiot for not understanding that “Do you think you have a right to be there” is referring to your presence on my property or you’re just being intellectually dishonest. I’m betting on the latter.

You're the one who wants me to guess what you mean by that.

I don’t want you to guess at anything, I want you to answer a simple question. Besides, you don’t need to guess at what you know already: that you think you have a right or you don’t.

I think I have the ability to walk places. Is there some reason you think I also need a right or privilege?

Is there some reason you’ve conflated my question to mean I think you need a right or privilege?

What makes it your property?

I didn’t say “my property” dumbass. I said “one’s property”.

My argument is that a subjective set of ideas and morals does. And so forcing me off this property would be you confirming my argument that force against people is necessary in order to create and protect subjective notions of ownership.

So again, what is the significance of this to you? Does it make removing you unjust? Immoral? Wrong? What? Or is it just a physical removal of a trespasser with no moral, ethical or justice connotations attached?

Should you respect my what? For the sake of my argument I'm not making any claims of ownership.

A claim is a claim, dumbass.

I don't see your point because you haven't explained why I need this privilege to do anything.

I did not suggest you needed anything so there’s nothing to explain.

I can explain to you why you need the ability to walk for you to be able to walk, because I understand what I'm talking about. I dont undertsand the point you're trying to make here.

I’m not making a point, I’m asking a question.

I thought I did just explain it to you. What are you still confused about?

I’m confused about why you’re bringing up resources to make the simple point that it takes physical force to physically remove someone.

Everything around you is a resource of potential use to you. What gives any one else the right to deny you them? I can answer that one for you, it's the force of law. The ability to bring superior collective force against people is what gives societies and individuals of societies this ability they call a legal right.

It appears that you now suddenly understand what a right is. Great. Now we’re getting somewhere.

So given that you understand that subjective law bestows rights of ownership, do you in turn feel this grants you some sort of objective right of access outside of law?

I'm saying legal rights are subjective and needing someone or some societies subjective permission least they use force against me is proving my argument. Are you trying to prove my argument or disprove it?

Neither. I’m trying to figure out if you think this bears some sigificance or meaning apart from the obvious point that physical force is needed to remove someone from one’s property.

Off the table of what? Are or just asking questions or attempting an argument?

What difference does that make? If I have an argument to make, you’ll know when I do.

If you meant in terms of legal rights then why don't you try explaining what those are?

Again, irrelevant.

What rights?

I won’t know that unless you tell me you do. Then it’s up to you to tell me what kind of right you have.

I think I can assume at this point that you are not saying you have a legal right, yes?

I don't know how to answer because you can't explain the relevance.

The relevance to your presence on my property, dumbass. What else?

Who's relevance you're reluctant to explain, why?

Because you already know.

What makes anything anyone's property to begin with?

Answer the question: Is all this about resources?

I've been talking about walking around the earth and how force against me is necessary for the people who want to claim some of Earth as their private property. You want to skip all that and argue from the premise that some of the Earth is your private property without explaining how we even got here or acknowledging that it's the force of law that protects this legal claim.

Which means what? Why is this significant to you?

Everything is a resource, not just the tree.

Okay. Are you saying you’re entitled to access to my pecan trees? What, exactly, are you implying outside the obvious?

You won't explain it for the sake of your own argument.

Because you don’t need it explained to you.

 

[Curried Goats]

Saying that physical force is needed and required to not respect your ability to go where you please is fantasy and not a rational argument.

You’re the one who said physical force was required to not respect your ability to go where you please and this is what I’m contesting.

You’ve made the point many times that physical force is required to reinforce a subjective claim to ownership.
Property ownership and control of resources therein has been the foundation of your argument the entire time. Self defense or any other libertarian ideals was never the topic between you and me.


And you are the one who said physical force is needed to not respect your ability to go where you please.

Not only is this patently false, your word choice of “not respect” implies much more than your subsequent “clarifications” ever did. Your clarifications make no sense in light of your word choice.


I don’t care. This is about your claim that physical force is required.


This may or may not be true but my contention is with your claim about physical force. Whatever you have going on with libertarians has nothing to do with what I am arguing against.


But your words do not.

If you want rational discussion then answer the question: Why is physical force to remove someone from property significant? Why is it worth mentioning and discussing and what meaning does it have for you beyond the obvious; that physically removing someone takes physical force?


It would not only be confusing, it would grammatically make no sense. Just as “not respect” grammatically makes no sense in the context of an action. To not respect something is not an action in any sense or context.

The question is asking YOU what you mean.

If you don’t think you have a right, say so. If you think you do, explain why. Beyond that, all I can say is, quit pretending you don’t know what a right is.


We are talking about you being on my property and me forcing you off. So either you’re a fucking idiot for not understanding that “Do you think you have a right to be there” is referring to your presence on my property or you’re just being intellectually dishonest. I’m betting on the latter.


I don’t want you to guess at anything, I want you to answer a simple question. Besides, you don’t need to guess at what you know already: that you think you have a right or you don’t.


Is there some reason you’ve conflated my question to mean I think you need a right or privilege?


I didn’t say “my property” dumbass. I said “one’s property”.


So again, what is the significance of this to you? Does it make removing you unjust? Immoral? Wrong? What? Or is it just a physical removal of a trespasser with no moral, ethical or justice connotations attached?


A claim is a claim, dumbass.


I did not suggest you needed anything so there’s nothing to explain.


I’m not making a point, I’m asking a question.


I’m confused about why you’re bringing up resources to make the simple point that it takes physical force to physically remove someone.


It appears that you now suddenly understand what a right is. Great. Now we’re getting somewhere.

So given that you understand that subjective law bestows rights of ownership, do you in turn feel this grants you some sort of objective right of access outside of law?


Neither. I’m trying to figure out if you think this bears some sigificance or meaning apart from the obvious point that physical force is needed to remove someone from one’s property.

What difference does that make? If I have an argument to make, you’ll know when I do.


Again, irrelevant.


I won’t know that unless you tell me you do. Then it’s up to you to tell me what kind of right you have.

I think I can assume at this point that you are not saying you have a legal right, yes?


The relevance to your presence on my property, dumbass. What else?


Because you already know.


Answer the question: Is all this about resources?


Which means what? Why is this significant to you?


Okay. Are you saying you’re entitled to access to my pecan trees? What, exactly, are you implying outside the obvious?

Because you don’t need it explained to you.

Moron, you keep asking me what the significance of my argument is and ignoring when I tell you that my argument was to a libertarian and it's purpose was to show that under libertarian philosophy private ownership of resources would objectively be unjust. (Per the rules of libertarianism).

Also grammar is completely made up which makes you complaining about it make no sense.

 

[Beekeeper]

Moron, you keep asking me what the significance of my argument is and ignoring when I tell you that my argument was to a libertarian and it's purpose was to show that under libertarian philosophy private ownership of resources would objectively be unjust. (Per the rules of libertarianism).

Also grammar is completely made up which makes you complaining about it make no sense.

Wow, that sentence has such great syntax, so I don't know why no one can understand you.

 

[Curried Goats]

Wow, that sentence has such great syntax, so I don't know why no one can understand you.

Because you're ignorant mother fuckers who don't speak English?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Moron, you keep asking me what the significance of my argument is and ignoring when I tell you that my argument was to a libertarian and it's purpose was to show that under libertarian philosophy private ownership of resources would objectively be unjust. (Per the rules of libertarianism).

Your argument was to ME. You declared to ME that physical force is required to physically force someone off your (claimed) property.

Also grammar is completely made up which makes you complaining about it make no sense.

So are you now claiming that because grammer is subjective that “not respect” can be physical force?

 

[Beekeeper]

Because you're ignorant mother fuckers who don't speak English?

But that's all made up.

 

[Curried Goats]

Your argument was to ME. You declared to ME that physical force is required to physically force someone off your (claimed) property.

My argument was to a libertarian and you got in the middle of it. It doesn't change just because you're a busy body.

So are you now claiming that because grammer is subjective that “not respect” can be physical force?

In the way I meant it, yes. It means "to interfere with" like one object acting on another. How is this still confusing you, moron?

 

[Curried Goats]

But that's all made up.

The pretense of your inability to understand? I figured as much. Better to feign ignorance than offer a stupid argument.

 

[Beekeeper]

The pretense of your inability to understand? I figured as much. Better to feign ignorance than offer a stupid argument.

To understand your made up language?