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

[Ghost of a Rider]

My meaning isn't hard to sus out. It's F=MA.

But you brought up access to resources.

I still don't know what extra legal means.

I did my part. Look it up.

You didn’t like it when I asked if you thought you had a right because you only understood the word in a legal context. Therefore, I asked if you thought you had a right or privilege in an extralegal context.

Again, look it up.

It's not a mystery you moron. I've told you repeatedly. The reason I brought it up was to prove to dblack and the rest of the Libertarians that private property can only be created with threats and uses of force and would therefore be unjust according to the principles of libertarian philosophy that says force is only just in acts of self defense.

I haven’t argued libertarian views so this is irrelevant.

You told me that force is necessary and that it prevents free access to resources. This has nothing to do with any perceived inconsistencies in libertarian philosophy. In fact, as I’ve been saying, you seem to think force to remove someone from property is unjust under any philosophy, ideal or moral code.

I view him objectively as someone using force to further their own interests. You keep using words to describe subjective feelings and I'm making an objective argument about what property ownership objectively is.

Okay. This is like saying water is wet. Beyond the obvious, does this mean anything to you? Why are you stating the obvious?

I understand the context of which I argue F=MA perfectly well. Its you that's still confused after all this time.

I’m not confused about the argument, dumbass. I’m confused as to why you’re even making it.

I think watching your confusion unfold is worth my time.

So it has no significance for you?

I still don't know what extra legal is supposed to mean.

Look it up.

You use them like a monkey uses a typewriter. You can punch the keys but you dont understand what they're for.

Then that must mean you don’t either. You’ve used subjective terms throughout the entire discussion.

Yeah, you offered secular and extra legal. Words I don't understand in this context. There's legal and illegal. Give me an example of something extra legal.

I gave you two examples, dumbass.

Depends on the context.

You don’t need context to understand the phrase “couched in terms”. You’re just playing dumb.

Thats a different argument you moron. One is an argument about how private property is created and the other about how it's regulated.

Of course it’s a different fucking argument you idiot. Hence my use of the term “flip flop”.

We’ve been talking about private property and you brought up resources in the context of private property. Then you flip flopped to taxes.

It is not.

You’re the one who told me words are subjective and can mean whatever we want.

Definition of TYRANT

So now you’re going to go by a dictionary definition after telling me words are subjective and arguing with me when I said “not respect” is grammatically incorrect when suggesting action?

What a fucking hypocrite.

Are Slavers subjective or objective usurpers of sovereignty?

Tell you what, I’ll lend credence to your dictionary citations when you lend credence to mine. Fair enough?

I have admitted it you moron. It's just not my morality.

And that’s what you won’t admit: that it’s your morality.

I keep telling you that it's the morality of libertarian philosophy that force against other people for anything other than self defense is unjust.

Fine. But we weren’t discussing libertarian philosophy.

Describe where you find the morality in F=MA.

You describe it. You’re the one citing physics while using terms like “respect”, “freedom” and “resources”.

I'm perfectly fine with that too. I've been describing it as such this whole time. You appear to be imagining things.

Irrelevant. Are you fine with someone forcing you off their property?

Because you're too stupid to see you're pointing in the wrong direction even though I've been trying to give you those directions this entire time.

Irrelevant. You were too stupid to realize I was quoting some of your remarks to illustrate that there was a tinge of moral or ideaological bias implicit in them.

If you're looking for morality it's libertarian in nature and it's within the nature of their philosophy that I make my case against the justness of private property.

Now you’re talking about two different things. I thought your argument with libertarians was that force or violence in defense of private property contradicted their philosophy that only violence in self defense is justified, not that private property itself is unjust.

 

[Curried Goats]

But you brought up access to resources.

Objectively everything in the universe is a potential resource.

I did my part. Look it up.

I know what it means to me. Extra legal is synonymous with illegal to me. If you mean something else then you're going to have to do a better job explaining it.

You didn’t like it when I asked if you thought you had a right because you only understood the word in a legal context. Therefore, I asked if you thought you had a right or privilege in an extralegal context.

The only feelings your questions evoke is amusement. I dont mind discussing rights in any context, I just like to know what context we're discussing them in.

Again, look it up.

Or just explain yourself better.

I haven’t argued libertarian views so this is irrelevant.

Its relevant because my argument is a counter argument to libertarian morality and notions of private property. That context is only irrelevant when you no longer wish to discuss my argument. So long that you do that context is central to it.

You told me that force is necessary and that it prevents free access to resources. This has nothing to do with any perceived inconsistencies in libertarian philosophy. In fact, as I’ve been saying, you seem to think force to remove someone from property is unjust under any philosophy, ideal or moral code.

What do you know about libertarian philosophy?

Just and Unjust uses of force are central to libertarian philosophy.

Okay. This is like saying water is wet. Beyond the obvious, does this mean anything to you? Why are you stating the obvious?

Because it amuses me how the obvious escapes the Libertarians.

I’m not confused about the argument, dumbass. I’m confused as to why you’re even making it.

As a counter to libertarian ideology. You continue to be confused despite this being repeated to you over and over. How thick are you?

So it has no significance for you?

Look it up.


Then that must mean you don’t either. You’ve used subjective terms throughout the entire discussion.


I gave you two examples, dumbass.


You don’t need context to understand the phrase “couched in terms”. You’re just playing dumb.

I've already explained to you that to me it means illegal.

Of course it’s a different fucking argument you idiot. Hence my use of the term “flip flop”.

Do you know what flip flop means, moron? Of course it's a different argument, because it's a different subject. It's not a flip flop for me to use a different argument for a different subject, Dipshit....

We’ve been talking about private property and you brought up resources in the context of private property. Then you flip flopped to taxes.

Moron, you made a comment about what you fantasized my feelings were over not having access to your resources and I pointed out to you that I do have access to your resources in the form of taxes and government spending. Me pointing this out to you isn't related to my argument about force and private ownership. It was a separate point, idiot.

You’re the one who told me words are subjective and can mean whatever we want.


So now you’re going to go by a dictionary definition after telling me words are subjective and arguing with me when I said “not respect” is grammatically incorrect when suggesting action?

What a fucking hypocrite.

Tell you what, I’ll lend credence to your dictionary citations when you lend credence to mine. Fair enough?

Words are entirely made up so you can make them up to mean whatever you like. It's the meaning we judge for accuracy. You still crying over word choice is fucking funny. Also the dictionary doesn't at all say that my use of respect is incorrect, that's your subjective interpretation.

And that’s what you won’t admit: that it’s your morality.

It's not my morality. I don't even believe just or unjust are real things.

Fine. But we weren’t discussing libertarian philosophy.

That's what my argument was about. If you want to discuss my argument you can't ignore what it was actually about otherwise you're only attacking a strawman version.

You describe it. You’re the one citing physics while using terms like “respect”, “freedom” and “resources”.

You describe it moron. You're the one claiming F=MA is about my morality. How about you actually try to make a case instead of just saying some shit?

Irrelevant. Are you fine with someone forcing you off their property?

Of course not. I don't like any uses of force against my person. I don't care what happens to you though.

Irrelevant. You were too stupid to realize I was quoting some of your remarks to illustrate that there was a tinge of moral or ideaological bias implicit in them.

Of course there is Moron. It is a counter to libertarian morality.

Now you’re talking about two different things. I thought your argument with libertarians was that force or violence in defense of private property contradicted their philosophy that only violence in self defense is justified, not that private property itself is unjust.

If force is only just in acts of self defense then force against others to create private dominion over natural resources is unjust because that force isn't being used for self defense, objectively speaking.

Do you know how to make simple logical conclusions? That was an easy one my guy. How mentally retarded are you exactly?

 

[georgephillip]

'Equity' is hideous, and should not be tolerated in a free capitalistic society!!

We all should be on board for 'equality'. We know, that has not been the case in the past, but the goal starting today, is that everyone should have an equal opportunity.

'Equity' on the other hand, is a whole different animal, and is very un-American!

Not surprisingly, a Marxist will always be for 'equity', where you take and give depending on their needs. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Sound familliar? This is the world that Kamalla Harris wants for America.

"The government cannot deny rights to certain people because they are black, female, Muslim, etc.—this would be unequal treatment. A mandate to foster equity, though, would give the government power to violate these rights in order to achieve identical social results for all people. In accordance with this thinking, the authorities might be justified in giving some people more rights than others."

Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy​

"There’s a big difference between equality and equity."​

Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy

Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris provided narration for a short animated clip that appeared on her Twitter feed Sunday. In the clip,

reason.com

"Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities.

"Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances, and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome."

Equality versus Equity: What's the difference as we #EmbraceEquity for IWD 2023 and beyond?

While Kamala has never expressed any reservations about a market economy, the same can not be said for her father:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Harris#:~:text=Harris's%20research%20and%20publications%20have,growth%20in%20a%20market%20economy.

" (Donald) Harris's research and publications have focused on exploring the process of capital accumulation and its implications for economic growth, arguing that economic inequality and uneven development are inevitable properties of economic growth in a market economy."

 

[Hollie]

Maybe Kameltoe needs to move into a tent under an overpass in Oakland if equity is what she truly desires. Why should she lead a life of privilege and wealth while the majority have less than she does?

Yes. "Equity" would require wealth redistribution. A core element of Stalinist / Leninist ideology.

 

[dblack]

Yes. "Equity" would require wealth redistribution. A core element of Stalinist / Leninist ideology.

It's worse than that. It's not just wealth they want to redistribute. Equity abandons "equal rights" and replaces it with state assigned privilege. It would have us going all in on identity politics, where your rights are a gift from the state based your circumstances and the whim of the regime in charge.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Objectively everything in the universe is a potential resource.

Irrelevant. It has nothing to with F=MA.

I know what it means to me. Extra legal is synonymous with illegal to me.

Wrong. Illegal means something explicitly against prescribed law. Extralegal means an issue, matter, action or discussion being considered outside of or apart from the concept or matter of law.

You pointed out that rights are not bestowed on us by a deity and that laws are man made. That’s true enough. But within the context of deist philosophy that shaped much of the thinking in the early years of our country, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were extralegal concerns.

If you mean something else then you're going to have to do a better job explaining it.

See above. That’s twice now it has been explained to you. There won’t be a third. I can only devote so much time to your willful ignorance.

The only feelings your questions evoke is amusement. I dont mind discussing rights in any context, I just like to know what context we're discussing them in.

But you know what context you’re discussing them in, don’t you? That is what I’m trying to figure out. Hence, the questions. Moron.

I can’t reconcile your contention that you’re only referring to the law of motion with your use of the words “respect”, “freedom”, “resources” and “unjust”.

You’re language fairly screams at me that there’s an underlying moral bias to your argument.

Or just explain yourself better.

Or just quit being a semi-literate ignoramus.

Its relevant because my argument is a counter argument to libertarian morality and notions of private property. That context is only irrelevant when you no longer wish to discuss my argument. So long that you do that context is central to it.

Nope, that dog won’t hunt. Your arguments in our exchange have been counter arguments to MY arguments, not libertarian morality.

What do you know about libertarian philosophy?

What I know about libertarian philosophy is irrelevant. I’m going by what you said, dumbass. Do you not remember explaining to me their ideas about violence in self defense being inconsistent with violence to protect private property?

Just and Unjust uses of force are central to libertarian philosophy.

What does that have to do with what I’ve been arguing?

Because it amuses me how the obvious escapes the Libertarians.

So can I assume it means nothing to you beyond your amusement?

As a counter to libertarian ideology. You continue to be confused despite this being repeated to you over and over. How thick are you?

Again, what does it have to do with what I’ve been arguing?

I've already explained to you that to me it means illegal.

And I’ve explained to you that that is incorrect.

Are you trying to tell me what I meant?

Do you know what flip flop means, moron?

Yes, I do, dumbass.

Of course it's a different argument, because it's a different subject. It's not a flip flop for me to use a different argument for a different subject, Dipshit....

Why are you bringing up a different subject? Dipshit.

Force in defending private property and private resources has absolutely nothing to do with taxes.

Moron, you made a comment about what you fantasized my feelings were over not having access to your resources and I pointed out to you that I do have access to your resources in the form of taxes and government spending. Me pointing this out to you isn't related to my argument about force and private ownership. It was a separate point, idiot.

Resources on private property is an entirely different subject from taxes.

If you already have access to my resources through taxes then why bring up resources in the context of private property? Are you saying you want access to my taxes AND my pecans?

Words are entirely made up so you can make them up to mean whatever you like.

Then that means “extralegal” does not mean illegal because that’s not how I meant it, doesn’t it? It also means “tyrants” is subjective, yes?

It's the meaning we judge for accuracy. You still crying over word choice is fucking funny.

How many times have you said “Is that subjective or objective?!” whenever I used a certain word? You’ve been crying over word choice from the beginning.

Also the dictionary doesn't at all say that my use of respect is incorrect, that's your subjective interpretation.

The dictionary is not going to say a word is incorrect, dumbass.

“not respect” does not mean “disrespect” and does not imply action in any context. Your use of that term was grammatically incorrect.

It's not my morality. I don't even believe just or unjust are real things.

You have moral convictions about slavery, yes? That is your morality.

That's what my argument was about.

Not with me it wasn’t.

Aside from libertarian philosophy, you still contend that law and property ownership is subjective, right?

If you want to discuss my argument you can't ignore what it was actually about otherwise you're only attacking a strawman version.

I’m not ignoring the arguments you posed to me. Every one of my arguments have been counter arguments to what you told me. Specifically, the issue of law being force and whether or not it takes force to trespass, among other things.

These are ideas you have about private property irrespective of libertarian philosophy. Tell me I’m wrong.

You describe it moron. You're the one claiming F=MA is about my morality.

Never said any such thing, dumbass. I said your argument goes beyond a mere formula for the law of motion. Citing the formula is just your way of dancing around your subjective views.

How about you actually try to make a case instead of just saying some shit?

You mean like you conflating my contention that your argument implies a bias outside a formula to mean the formula itself implies feelings?

Of course not. I don't like any uses of force against my person. I don't care what happens to you though.

There you go. If it’s all subjective then your feelings about being forced off private property are subjective and ultimately irrelevant.

Of course there is Moron. It is a counter to libertarian morality.

Nope. Your argument with libertarian morality was simply about their beliefs about violence in self defense being inconsistent with violence to defend property.

Your arguments to me have been about whether force is justified to remove someone from property, the ownership of which is ultimately subjective.

If force is only just in acts of self defense then force against others to create private dominion over natural resources is unjust because that force isn't being used for self defense, objectively speaking.

I’m not the one saying force is only just in acts of self defense, they are. So what, exactly, has your argument been to ME?

Also, it sounds suspiciously like you’re saying defense of private property is unjust. Is that what you’re saying?

Do you know how to make simple logical conclusions? That was an easy one my guy. How mentally retarded are you exactly?

Do you know how to discern one argument from another? Specifically, mine from the libertarian’s? Just how retarded are you exactly?

 

[Curried Goats]

Irrelevant. It has nothing to with F=MA.


Wrong. Illegal means something explicitly against prescribed law. Extralegal means an issue, matter, action or discussion being considered outside of or apart from the concept or matter of law.

That's still pretty unclear. Give an example.

You pointed out that rights are not bestowed on us by a deity and that laws are man made. That’s true enough. But within the context of deist philosophy that shaped much of the thinking in the early years of our country, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were extralegal concerns.

So.... subjective philosophical concerns? Then how do you expect me to know what you're fantasizing about? I'm not privy to your imagination.

See above. That’s twice now it has been explained to you. There won’t be a third. I can only devote so much time to your willful ignorance.

It's genuine ignorance. It's not easy for me to intuit exactly what your fantasies are.

But you know what context you’re discussing them in, don’t you? That is what I’m trying to figure out. Hence, the questions. Moron.

I wasn't talking about rights. You're the one who brought them up.

I can’t reconcile your contention that you’re only referring to the law of motion with your use of the words “respect”, “freedom”, “resources” and “unjust”.

Because I'm not. I used each of those words in different contexts. Unjust for example was a reference to a libertarian moral belief.

You’re language fairly screams at me that there’s an underlying moral bias to your argument.

Or just quit being a semi-literate ignoramus.


Nope, that dog won’t hunt. Your arguments in our exchange have been counter arguments to MY arguments, not libertarian morality.

Your arguments are a counter to my argument which is a counter to libertarian notions of morality and private property.

What I know about libertarian philosophy is irrelevant. I’m going by what you said, dumbass. Do you not remember explaining to me their ideas about violence in self defense being inconsistent with violence to protect private property?

I do.

What does that have to do with what I’ve been arguing?

What are you arguing? Didn't you already concede that private property is a subjective idea?

So can I assume it means nothing to you beyond your amusement?

You don't have to assume it when that's what I'm telling you.

Again, what does it have to do with what I’ve been arguing?

Which is what?

And I’ve explained to you that that is incorrect.

I'm not trying to tell you what it means to you. I'm explaining to you what it means to me.

Are you trying to tell me what I meant?

Nope.

Yes, I do, dumbass.

You don't.

Why are you bringing up a different subject? Dipshit.

You brought it up you Dipshit. I was responding to you.

Force in defending private property and private resources has absolutely nothing to do with taxes.

I never said it did.

Resources on private property is an entirely different subject from taxes.

It is. I just said that to you before you repeated it back to me right now.

If you already have access to my resources through taxes then why bring up resources in the context of private property? Are you saying you want access to my taxes AND my pecans?

I'm not bringing up anything. I'm responding to your comment you Dummy.

Then that means “extralegal” does not mean illegal because that’s not how I meant it, doesn’t it? It also means “tyrants” is subjective, yes?

No you Dipshit. That's not what that means. I told you you don't understand what objective and subjective are and how to use them effectively.

Extralegal can mean one thing to me and another to you. That's because all words are entirely made up. That's the way in which vocabulary and grammar are subjective. What you mean with the words you make up however can be determined to either be objectively true or false.

I mean Tyrant to be someone who takes another's sovereignty. Whether or not Slavers objectively fit that description or not is a matter of determining whether slavery usurps another's sovereignty.

How many times have you said “Is that subjective or objective?!” whenever I used a certain word? You’ve been crying over word choice from the beginning.

You continue to fail in your usage of it.

The dictionary is not going to say a word is incorrect, dumbass.

“not respect” does not mean “disrespect” and does not imply action in any context. Your use of that term was grammatically incorrect.

The example I gave you from the dictionary says otherwise you illiterate Clown.


Definition of RESPECT


1. I used the word respect and the second example under noun says: an act of giving particular attention.

2. The second example under verb is: to refrain from interfering with. Exactly the meaning I was conveying about not interfering with my ability to walk as I please.

You have moral convictions about slavery, yes? That is your morality.

I have personal feelings about slavery. I don't liken them to judgments about morality because morality is made up. I also don't call it evil for the same reason. I don't believe in evil or demons or hell.

Not with me it wasn’t.

My argument hasnt changed just because I'm giving it to you now instead of dblack.

Aside from libertarian philosophy, you still contend that law and property ownership is subjective, right?

Yes. Didn't you already concede that it was?

I’m not ignoring the arguments you posed to me. Every one of my arguments have been counter arguments to what you told me. Specifically, the issue of law being force and whether or not it takes force to trespass, among other things.

The law is force. You made some silly strawman point about the law not being force when it's not being applied. That's like arguing you won't get wet from the rain when it isn't raining. Who was arguing otherwise?

Also, I make objective arguments about force, whether or not someone is trespassing is ultimately a subjective determination.

These are ideas you have about private property irrespective of libertarian philosophy. Tell me I’m wrong.

Sure. Have you made any successful counter arguments to them?

I thought you already conceded laws were subjective ideas and morals?

Never said any such thing, dumbass. I said your argument goes beyond a mere formula for the law of motion. Citing the formula is just your way of dancing around your subjective views.

What subjective views and in what way do you think they're relevant to the argument?

Whether force is being applied to an object isn't subjective, it's objective. It either is it or isn't. I make objectively fact based arguments because they're more accurate descriptions of reality than your make believe ones.

You mean like you conflating my contention that your argument implies a bias outside a formula to mean the formula itself implies feelings?

My argument is that F=MA. Where's the bias?

There you go. If it’s all subjective then your feelings about being forced off private property are subjective and ultimately irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what? My feelings aren't irrelevant to me and you asked about them you Clown. That's multiple times now you've asked a question only to respond that the answer you were fishing for was irrelevant.

What's the point of asking it then?

Nope. Your argument with libertarian morality was simply about their beliefs about violence in self defense being inconsistent with violence to defend property.

Yep.

Your arguments to me have been about whether force is justified to remove someone from property, the ownership of which is ultimately subjective.

Nope. Whether you think something is justified is matter of your feelings. I don't care about your feelings in that regard. My argument has never been about your feelings or even my feelings on what is just.

I’m not the one saying force is only just in acts of self defense, they are. So what, exactly, has your argument been to ME?

That libertarian philosophy is inconsistent. Again, you got in the middle of conversation I was having with someone else. I was never having a debate with you about your feelings. Is that what you think I've been doing this whole time?

Also, it sounds suspiciously like you’re saying defense of private property is unjust. Is that what you’re saying?

What would be the point in me saying that when unjust isn't something that has any objective meaning?

Do you know how to discern one argument from another? Specifically, mine from the libertarian’s? Just how retarded are you exactly?

How retarded are you that you don't understand all your counter arguments to me are counter arguments to a counter argument to libertarians?

 

[zett jett]

Wrong. Illegal means something explicitly against prescribed law.

The clown with whom you are conversing just makes up his own stuff.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That's still pretty unclear. Give an example.

Nope. I gave you two already.

So.... subjective philosophical concerns? Then how do you expect me to know what you're fantasizing about? I'm not privy to your imagination.

Whooosh Right over your head.

That was just an example of rights being viewed in an extralegal context. So no, not necessarily subjective philosophical concerns.

It's genuine ignorance. It's not easy for me to intuit exactly what your fantasies are.

You wanted to know what “extralegal” meant, not what my “fantasies” were. Besides that, it was not an assertion, it was a question: Do you view private property ownership in an extralegal sense?

I wasn't talking about rights. You're the one who brought them up.

In the form of a question.

Because I'm not. I used each of those words in different contexts.

No you didn’t. Each one was used in the context of private property ownership and using force to remove a trespasser from that property.

Unjust for example was a reference to a libertarian moral belief.

Can I assume then that you don’t feel it is unjust to forcibly remove a trespasser?

Your arguments are a counter to my argument which is a counter to libertarian notions of morality and private property.

Which still means my arguments are counterarguments to your arguments, yes?

Your argument with them is about the justness of violence in defense of property given their position that violence is only justified in self defense.

Whereas your argument with me is about the justness of violence in defense of property given that property and laws are subjective and that (so you say) force is not needed to encroach on property.

I do.

Then why are you asking me what I know about libertarian philosophy when you yourself explained some of that philosophy to me?

What are you arguing? Didn't you already concede that private property is a subjective idea?

I’m not arguing against that and I never did. I’m arguing against other things you say such as law is force, force is not needed to trespass and other things.

You don't have to assume it when that's what I'm telling you.

So if it means nothing to you, why bring it up?

Which is what?

How is it you remember your arguments but not what you were arguing against?

I'm not trying to tell you what it means to you. I'm explaining to you what it means to me.

Right, just like I did. And when I did you accused me of telling you what you meant.

Nope.

You don't.

Okay, I’ll play along. I don’t know what “flip flop” means. But I do know you brought up an irrelevant point about taxes when the discussion is about private property and the resources therein.

You brought up access to resources in the context of private property and then you say you already have access to my resources through taxes. So why the fuck did you bring up resources on private property at all?

You brought it up you Dipshit. I was responding to you.

I didn’t bring up taxes, dipshit, you did.

I never said it did.

Then why bring it up?

It is. I just said that to you before you repeated it back to me right now.

So again, why did you bring it up?

I'm not bringing up anything. I'm responding to your comment you Dummy.

I said: “You’re bothered by not having access to my resources,”

I said nothing here about taxes.

No you Dipshit. That's not what that means. I told you you don't understand what objective and subjective are and how to use them effectively.

You mean like you telling me all words are subjective then using the subjective term “tyrants” and telling me the word is objective?

Extralegal can mean one thing to me and another to you. That's because all words are entirely made up. That's the way in which vocabulary and grammar are subjective. What you mean with the words you make up however can be determined to either be objectively true or false.

However, I did not make up the word “extralegal”.

I mean Tyrant to be someone who takes another's sovereignty. Whether or not Slavers objectively fit that description or not is a matter of determining whether slavery usurps another's sovereignty.

It’s still a subjective term but you specifically told me it is not.

The issue here is not your use of the word itself; the issue is you telling me “tyrants” was not subjective after telling me all words are subjective.

You’re contradicting yourself again.

You continue to fail in your usage of it.

In other words, you’re crying over word usage.

The example I gave you from the dictionary says otherwise you illiterate Clown.


Definition of RESPECT


1. I used the word respect and the second example under noun says: an act of giving particular attention.

Wrong. You used the words “not respect”.

2. The second example under verb is: to refrain from interfering with. Exactly the meaning I was conveying about not interfering with my ability to walk as I please.

No. Your arguments from the beginning pertained to physical force to REMOVE you from property. Interfering is not physically removing you and can take place without physical force.

I have personal feelings about slavery. I don't liken them to judgments about morality because morality is made up. I also don't call it evil for the same reason. I don't believe in evil or demons or hell.

Everyone has a moral code, including atheists. Don’t pretend you don’t know this as well as I do. And believing or not believing in evil or demons is irrelevant.

You have moral convictions about slavery and other things. If you didn’t then you wouldn’t call slavers deplorable mutants and tyrants.

My argument hasnt changed just because I'm giving it to you now instead of dblack.

But it has.

I never argued in support of libertarian ideals or that violence is only justified in self defense so your arguments to me have nothing to do with what you argued with them.
I’ve argued against your ideals about force and private property and you’ve argued against mine, not theirs.

Yes. Didn't you already concede that it was?

Irrelevant. The point is I’m arguing with some of the points you made to me, not them.

The law is force. You made some silly strawman point about the law not being force when it's not being applied. That's like arguing you won't get wet from the rain when it isn't raining. Who was arguing otherwise?

Once again the point went right over your head.

Also, I make objective arguments about force, whether or not someone is trespassing is ultimately a subjective determination.

So is your opinion that removing you is unjust.

Sure. Have you made any successful counter arguments to them?

I thought you already conceded laws were subjective ideas and morals?

Once again, irrelevant.

What subjective views and in what way do you think they're relevant to the argument?

They’re your subjective views, you tell me.

Whether force is being applied to an object isn't subjective, it's objective. It either is it or isn't. I make objectively fact based arguments because they're more accurate descriptions of reality than your make believe ones.

Your “objective” arguments ignore the million factors or possibilities that can happen in any situation to complicate the matter way beyond “law is force”.
My entire goal from the beginning has been to educate you on this fact and to illustrate how some of these factors can muddle the picture to the point that, for example, sometimes a law is not enforced, thus disproving the notion that law is force.

My argument is that F=MA. Where's the bias?

The bias is in everything else you’ve said. I even gave you examples of this but in your usual hypocritical dumbass fashion, you had to conflate it to something I never said or even implied.

Irrelevant to what?

Your feelings about being removed, dumbass.

My feelings aren't irrelevant to me and you asked about them you Clown. That's multiple times now you've asked a question only to respond that the answer you were fishing for was irrelevant.

Your answers are irrelevant because you don’t understand the meaning of certain words and you even admitted as much.

What's the point of asking it then?

What’s the point of saying force to remove you from property has no significance beyond the law of motion and your amusement while also saying you have feelings about being removed?

Once again, you’re talking in circles.

Yep.

Nope. Whether you think something is justified is matter of your feelings. I don't care about your feelings in that regard. My argument has never been about your feelings or even my feelings on what is just.

If just and unjust are subjective to feelings and you feel it is unjust then it is about your feelings.

That libertarian philosophy is inconsistent.

Bullshit. Your argument to me has been about force to remove someone from subjectively owned property being unjust.

Again, you got in the middle of conversation I was having with someone else. I was never having a debate with you about your feelings. Is that what you think I've been doing this whole time?

No, I think you’ve been having a debate about your feelings this whole time.

What would be the point in me saying that when unjust isn't something that has any objective meaning?

You tell me, you’re the one who said it.

How retarded are you that you don't understand all your counter arguments to me are counter arguments to a counter argument to libertarians?

How retarded are that you don’t know that your argument that libertarian beliefs about self defense have nothing to do with what you’ve been telling me or what I’ve been telling you?

You told me yourself in regards to libertarian morality that if violence is only justified in self defense then it is unjusified when defending subjectively owned property.

None of my arguments had anything to do with justification of self defense so don’t pretend you’re just repeating to me what you told them. Your arguments with me were on a different tack from the subject of self defense.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

The clown with whom you are conversing just makes up his own stuff.

I get that distinct impression.

 

[Curried Goats]

Nope. I gave you two already.


Whooosh Right over your head.

That was just an example of rights being viewed in an extralegal context. So no, not necessarily subjective philosophical concerns.

Aren't rights themselves subjective philosophical concerns?

You wanted to know what “extralegal” meant, not what my “fantasies” were. Besides that, it was not an assertion, it was a question: Do you view private property ownership in an extralegal sense?

I view private property in a legal sense.

In the form of a question.


No you didn’t. Each one was used in the context of private property ownership and using force to remove a trespasser from that property.

You're going to have to provide the quote for whatever you're crying about here because I'm at a loss.

Can I assume then that you don’t feel it is unjust to forcibly remove a trespasser?

I dont think just or unjust are real things. I don't think it's unjust for you to use force against someone else or for someone else to use force against you. For any reason. You want to make it about tresspassing but that's irrelevant to the equation for me.

Which still means my arguments are counterarguments to your arguments, yes?

My argument is a counter argument to libertarian moral absolutes. Is your counter argument about how I'm wrong about my assessment of objective uses force against libertarian moral absolutes?

Your argument with them is about the justness of violence in defense of property given their position that violence is only justified in self defense.

Whereas your argument with me is about the justness of violence in defense of property given that property and laws are subjective and that (so you say) force is not needed to encroach on property.

My argument to the Libertarians is about how objective uses of force for the creation and maintenance of private property contradict their moral values. I'm not arguing with you about the justness of anything. I don't believe in justness myself and I don't know what your beliefs on justness are. Do you believe in some objective morality? I have no idea.

Then why are you asking me what I know about libertarian philosophy when you yourself explained some of that philosophy to me?

Because that's what my argument is about. I dont know what argument you've been imagining we're having but I haven't been having one with you about anything other than how objective uses of force contradict libertarian morality. I don't even know what your beliefs are.

I’m not arguing against that and I never did. I’m arguing against other things you say such as law is force, force is not needed to trespass and other things.

So you want to have a different argument. Ok. To be honest that hasn't been clear up to now.

What's your problem with those statements other than the fact that you misrepresented one of them? I don't use the word trespass. My argument is about how force against you (objectively) isn't necessary for me to walk around the earth and avail myself of its resources. Do you want to make a counter argument to that or do you want to make an argument that is about trespassing because it seems like you want to do the latter.

So if it means nothing to you, why bring it up?


How is it you remember your arguments but not what you were arguing against?

Because apparently you've been having an argument about tresspassing this whole time.

Right, just like I did. And when I did you accused me of telling you what you meant.


Okay, I’ll play along. I don’t know what “flip flop” means. But I do know you brought up an irrelevant point about taxes when the discussion is about private property and the resources therein.

Discussions meander. You made a comment about how I was feeling about not having access to your resources. I was correcting you on the objective fact that I do.

You brought up access to resources in the context of private property and then you say you already have access to my resources through taxes. So why the fuck did you bring up resources on private property at all?

My comment about resources was made in a different context then your comment about resources. You made the false claim that I don't have access to your resources. But that any resources are your resources is a function of government and society that I have a right to manipulate and influence through my vote and through taxes. My comment was simply an objective statement of fact that all matter and energy in the universe is a resource. Not my resource but a resource.

I didn’t bring up taxes, dipshit, you did.

As a counter to your poorly thought out claim.

Then why bring it up?

Because you lobbed it out there right over home plate. I'm just doing what is in my natural iinstincts to do which is to murder that thing.

So again, why did you bring it up?

Because I'm a natural born killer.

I said: “You’re bothered by not having access to my resources,”

I said nothing here about taxes.

I said the thing about taxes as a counter argument to your claim. Do you not know how this thing works?

You mean like you telling me all words are subjective then using the subjective term “tyrants” and telling me the word is objective?

I told you the meaning was objective. When I said words are subjective that means that instead of using the word "tyrant" to mean someone who usurps power you could use "juice box" if that suits your fancy. Then the meaning behind the sentence, "Slavers are real juice boxes" could be verified for its objective accuracy. It's no different than using cool to mean something cold or something hip. People can come along and decide to use the word cool for some other purpose then what other people were using it for. That's all. It really isn't that complicated.

However, I did not make up the word “extralegal”.

I'm not suggesting you did. I'm telling you that I don't know what you mean by it.

It’s still a subjective term but you specifically told me it is not.

The issue here is not your use of the word itself; the issue is you telling me “tyrants” was not subjective after telling me all words are subjective.

I'm telling you that slavers were tyrants and that what I mean by tyrants is that they were usurpers of sovereignty. You feel free to use the word tyrant any way you like guy.

You’re contradicting yourself again.

No... you're just an idiot...

In other words, you’re crying over word usage.

This is your deal, not mine. I said slaver Founders were tyrants and you've been crying ever since.

Wrong. You used the words “not respect”.

I made no claim about what words came before or after respect only that I used the word respect.

No. Your arguments from the beginning pertained to physical force to REMOVE you from property. Interfering is not physically removing you and can take place without physical force.

My argument is about how forceful removal requires interference with my natural ability to use my body to go where I please. How do you remove me from a place against my will without interfering with this innate liberty I possess over my own body?

Everyone has a moral code, including atheists. Don’t pretend you don’t know this as well as I do. And believing or not believing in evil or demons is irrelevant.

I'm explaining to you that I certainly have subjective feelings over things I witness or read and hear about but referring to those feelings as a moral code is as strange to me as referring to them as a religious code. To me those are one and the same. Saying murder is wrong is no different that saying murder is evil. The mechanisms that would make it wrong or evil don't actually exist. Those are fantasies. I'd be angry and upset over the killing of a friend or family member, someone killing you or a total stranger probably isn't moving my needle much.

You have moral convictions about slavery and other things. If you didn’t then you wouldn’t call slavers deplorable mutants and tyrants.

I call them tyrants because me and Merriam-Webster mean that to be usurpers of sovereignty, which Slavers objectively are, my feelings aside.

But it has.

I never argued in support of libertarian ideals or that violence is only justified in self defense so your arguments to me have nothing to do with what you argued with them.
I’ve argued against your ideals about force and private property and you’ve argued against mine, not theirs.

I have no idea what yours even are and you've made claims about my arguments, like the claim that you can move someone against their will without interfering with their free will but you haven't really given any supporting arguments to prove that claim. It remains just one of many things you say and never follow up on with any proof or evidence or logic to support it.

Irrelevant. The point is I’m arguing with some of the points you made to me, not them.

Once again the point went right over your head.


So is your opinion that removing you is unjust.

My argument is that justness isn't even a real thing.

Once again, irrelevant.


They’re your subjective views, you tell me.

Your “objective” arguments ignore the million factors or possibilities that can happen in any situation to complicate the matter way beyond “law is force”.

You allude to these million factors but seem at a loss to even name one.

My entire goal from the beginning has been to educate you on this fact and to illustrate how some of these factors can muddle the picture to the point that, for example, sometimes a law is not enforced, thus disproving the notion that law is force.

Qualify it as a fact with supporting evidence. Haven't I already addressed this argument of yours that the law isn't force when it's not interacting with anything? My argument is about when it is interacting with people.

The bias is in everything else you’ve said. I even gave you examples of this but in your usual hypocritical dumbass fashion, you had to conflate it to something I never said or even implied.

So you concede there is no bias in F=MA? That that is objective?

Your feelings about being removed, dumbass.

Which have what to do with F=MA?

Your answers are irrelevant because you don’t understand the meaning of certain words and you even admitted as much.

I understand what they mean to me. I don't understand what they mean to you.

What’s the point of saying force to remove you from property has no significance beyond the law of motion and your amusement while also saying you have feelings about being removed?

Once again, you’re talking in circles.

I'm saying my feelings about private property or removing someone from private property doesn't really change the objective facts about what private property is, how it was created or what it takes to maintain it.

If just and unjust are subjective to feelings and you feel it is unjust then it is about your feelings.

I don't feel things are unjust any more than I feel things are evil. Unjust and Evil are imaginary beliefs that I don't cater to.

Bullshit. Your argument to me has been about force to remove someone from subjectively owned property being unjust.

As a counter to Libertarianism which believes in a thing called justice. I can argue over whether some play was pass interference even though I understand the entire game of Football is made up and it's rules make believe.

No, I think you’ve been having a debate about your feelings this whole time.

Can you present even one instance of what you're even talking about?

You tell me, you’re the one who said it.

How retarded are that you don’t know that your argument that libertarian beliefs about self defense have nothing to do with what you’ve been telling me or what I’ve been telling you?

I've been telling you since the beginning that my argument is a counter to libertarian beliefs, you're just not comprehending for some reason.

You told me yourself in regards to libertarian morality that if violence is only justified in self defense then it is unjusified when defending subjectively owned property.

None of my arguments had anything to do with justification of self defense so don’t pretend you’re just repeating to me what you told them. Your arguments with me were on a different tack from the subject of self defense.

What are your arguments even about?

 

[Mac-7]

or you engage in fraud to pay back your loans well that's just the art of deal.....

Including student loans?

The obama/biden/kamala junta wants to by votes by forcing blue collar workers to fund white collar students that are too greedy to pay back money they borrowed

 

[Curried Goats]

Including student loans?

The obama/biden/kamala junta wants to by votes by forcing blue collar workers to fund white collar students that are too greedy to pay back money they borrowed

Which is policy, not fraud. Moron.

 

[Mac-7]

Which is policy, not fraud. Moron.

Its a fraud on blue collar workers

 

[Curried Goats]

Its a fraud on blue collar workers

Nope.

 

[dblack]

Which is policy, not fraud. Moron.

It can be a tricky distinction to make. Like with ACA. Policy, or fraud?

 

[Curried Goats]

It can be a tricky distinction to make. Like with ACA. Policy, or fraud?

It's only hard if you're being weirdly emotional about it.

 

[dblack]

It's only hard if you're being weirdly emotional about it.

mkay... uh, are you trying to make a point?

Keep trying!

 

[Curried Goats]

mkay... uh, are you trying to make a point?

Keep trying!

My point is that you're being an emotional little bitch over something that is fairly straightforward. If it's passed by Congress and signed into law by the President that's policy. If you receive a guilty judgment in a criminal or civil court that's fraud. It really isn't that difficult.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Aren't rights themselves subjective philosophical concerns?

Again, irrelevant. We’re not talking about rights being subjective or objective, we’re talking about what “extralegal” means.

Rights was just an example I used to illustrate how the Founding Fathers viewed rights in an extralegal context: bestowed by a Creator. Anything, whether subjective or objective, can be viewd or approached as an extralegal matter.

I view private property in a legal sense.

Which means you don’t view it in a moral sense which in turn means you do not view it as unjust. That being the case, you also do not view forced removal from private property as injust.

You're going to have to provide the quote for whatever you're crying about here because I'm at a loss.

I’m not surprised you forgot what you were arguing.

I dont think just or unjust are real things. I don't think it's unjust for you to use force against someone else or for someone else to use force against you. For any reason. You want to make it about tresspassing but that's irrelevant to the equation for me.

But you brought up resources. If forcibly removing someone from my property is not just or unjust then why is access to my resources relevant to the discussion?

My argument is a counter argument to libertarian moral absolutes.

Which in turn is open to counterargument from another quarter, yes?

I understand you’re arguing against libertarian philosophy but my counterarguments are against your counterarguments to them.

Is your counter argument about how I'm wrong about my assessment of objective uses force against libertarian moral absolutes?

Nope. My counterargument is about how you’re wrong about law being force, among other things. You don’t remember arguing about this?

My argument to the Libertarians is about how objective uses of force for the creation and maintenance of private property contradict their moral values. I'm not arguing with you about the justness of anything. I don't believe in justness myself and I don't know what your beliefs on justness are. Do you believe in some objective morality? I have no idea.

Yet you brought up access to resources.

Because that's what my argument is about. I dont know what argument you've been imagining we're having but I haven't been having one with you about anything other than how objective uses of force contradict libertarian morality. I don't even know what your beliefs are.

Irrelevant. You asked me what I know about libertarian philosophy after explaining to me their Philosophy about self defense.

My comment was directly related to what you told me about their beliefs but you asked me what I know about their philosophy anyway.

So you want to have a different argument. Ok. To be honest that hasn't been clear up to now.

Are you claiming now that you don’t remember arguing this?

What's your problem with those statements other than the fact that you misrepresented one of them? I don't use the word trespass. My argument is about how force against you (objectively) isn't necessary for me to walk around the earth and avail myself of its resources. Do you want to make a counter argument to that or do you want to make an argument that is about trespassing because it seems like you want to do the latter.

Among other things, my argument is that, in the context of F=MA, it does take force for you to go where you please and it takes force to walk around on my property.

Because apparently you've been having an argument about tresspassing this whole time.

Actually, no I haven’t. I use the word but I never argued that it was trespassing. Like I said, my argument is against your subjective notions of force.

You didn’t answer the question. Why bring up taxes if you know it has nothing to do with private property?

Discussions meander. You made a comment about how I was feeling about not having access to your resources. I was correcting you on the objective fact that I do.

The context was private property you fucking idiot. It’s the context YOU provided and it’s the context we’ve been arguing in for weeks.

Instead of just confirming or denying my claim, you change to a context that renders your entire argument in the previous context moot.

My comment about resources was made in a different context then your comment about resources.

No shit.

You made the false claim that I don't have access to your resources.

Wrong Lumpy. I did not say you didn’t have access, I said you want access.

But that any resources are your resources is a function of government and society that I have a right to manipulate and influence through my vote and through taxes. My comment was simply an objective statement of fact that all matter and energy in the universe is a resource. Not my resource but a resource.

Bullshit. The context was private property. This is all irrelevant to that issue.

As a counter to your poorly thought out claim.

You mean the one you misinterpeted?

Because you lobbed it out there right over home plate. I'm just doing what is in my natural iinstincts to do which is to murder that thing.

You murdered your own misinterpetation, dumbass.

Because I'm a natural born killer.

Of what, intellectually honest dialogue?

I said the thing about taxes as a counter argument to your claim. Do you not know how this thing works?

Do you know how interpretation works?

I told you the meaning was objective.

No you didn’t. When I pointed out the word is subjective, you said “No it’s not.”.

When I said words are subjective that means that instead of using the word "tyrant" to mean someone who usurps power you could use "juice box" if that suits your fancy. Then the meaning behind the sentence, "Slavers are real juice boxes" could be verified for its objective accuracy. It's no different than using cool to mean something cold or something hip. People can come along and decide to use the word cool for some other purpose then what other people were using it for. That's all. It really isn't that complicated.

You idiot. If words (like private property) are subjective then the meaning is subjective to the feeling or point you are trying to convey.

Either words are subjective or they are not. You can’t have it both ways.

I'm not suggesting you did. I'm telling you that I don't know what you mean by it.

Even after having it explained to you twice with examples that you apparently missed and being advised thrice to look it up which you apparently refused to do.

I'm telling you that slavers were tyrants and that what I mean by tyrants is that they were usurpers of sovereignty. You feel free to use the word tyrant any way you like guy.

Irrelevant. The issue remains that you say all words are subjective while claiming the word “tyrants” is not.

No... you're just an idiot...

Says the guy who had a word explained to him twice, asked for examples after being given two; had a dictionary at his disposal but still doesn’t know what the word means.

This is your deal, not mine. I said slaver Founders were tyrants and you've been crying ever since.

Negative. All I said was that the word is subjective. You argued this point with me after having told me all words are subjective.

You’re the one crying here and you’re crying because you had your own argument thrown back in your face.

I made no claim about what words came before or after respect only that I used the word respect.

You idiot. I’m the one making the claim that you said “not respect” because you actually fucking did.

My argument is about how forceful removal requires interference with my natural ability to use my body to go where I please. How do you remove me from a place against my will without interfering with this innate liberty I possess over my own body?

Right. What I’ve been trying to figure out is how is this even relevant or significant when I have the natural ability to claim a piece of land and try to stop you, especially if you’re saying you don’t have an inherent right to go there?

I'm explaining to you that I certainly have subjective feelings over things I witness or read and hear about but referring to those feelings as a moral code is as strange to me as referring to them as a religious code. To me those are one and the same. Saying murder is wrong is no different that saying murder is evil. The mechanisms that would make it wrong or evil don't actually exist. Those are fantasies. I'd be angry and upset over the killing of a friend or family member, someone killing you or a total stranger probably isn't moving my needle much.

The murder of strangers doesn’t really move anyone’s needle so that’s not saying much.

But slavery does move your needle. What’s more, it happened to people you likely are not related to and who you never even met.

I call them tyrants because me and Merriam-Webster mean that to be usurpers of sovereignty, which Slavers objectively are, my feelings aside.

And “deplorable mutants”? Are you going to tell me this did not come from your moral convictions about slavery? If not, are you prepared to argue that “deplorable” is objective and that all slave owners were genetically mutated?

I have no idea what yours even are

Yet you argued against them.

and you've made claims about my arguments, like the claim that you can move someone against their will without interfering with their free will but you haven't really given any supporting arguments to prove that claim.

You have a habit of misinterpreting what I say so you’re going to have to do better than that and give me a post number. I have no idea what you’re talking about.

It remains just one of many things you say and never follow up on with any proof or evidence or logic to support it.

I don’t think I said that.

My argument is that justness isn't even a real thing.

Yet you used the word “unjust”.

You allude to these million factors but seem at a loss to even name one.

Of course I did. I gave you an example where the law was not enforced.

Qualify it as a fact with supporting evidence.

I’m not going to try to qualify something you know is true. You know as well as I do that sometimes laws are not enforced or not enforced the way they’re meant to be.

Haven't I already addressed this argument of yours that the law isn't force when it's not interacting with anything? My argument is about when it is interacting with people.

Exactly. Which means law itself is not force.

So you concede there is no bias in F=MA? That that is objective?

I never said there was bias in F=MA, dumbass. Therefore, there is nothing to concede.

Which have what to do with F=MA?

Absolutely nothing. Which is exactly my point.

I understand what they mean to me. I don't understand what they mean to you.

I’ve explained to you what they mean.

I'm saying my feelings about private property or removing someone from private property doesn't really change the objective facts about what private property is, how it was created or what it takes to maintain it.

So that’s it? If you’re not implying anything beyond this then I don’t understand why this is even worth discussing.

I don't feel things are unjust any more than I feel things are evil. Unjust and Evil are imaginary beliefs that I don't cater to.

But you used the word “unjust” in the context of libertarian beliefs about self defense and defending private property.

Are you saying defending private property is unjust only in the context of their beliefs about self defense?

As a counter to Libertarianism which believes in a thing called justice. I can argue over whether some play was pass interference even though I understand the entire game of Football is made up and it's rules make believe.

Just to be clear: you’re saying thay my removing you from my property is not unjust?

Can you present even one instance of what you're even talking about?

Sure. Tyrants, freedom and “not respect”, among other things.

I've been telling you since the beginning that my argument is a counter to libertarian beliefs, you're just not comprehending for some reason.

And I’ve been telling you my counterarguments are against some of your counterarguments to them. You’re just not comprehending for some reason.

What are your arguments even about?

Did you forget again what you were arguing against?