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

[Curried Goats]

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.

What do the fantasies of the Founders have to do with me? I don't share those fantasies but it seems like you're confirming that you mean extra legal as a subjective philosophical idea.

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.

I don't view anything as unjust because it's not a real thing.

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


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?

It's relevant to libertarian philosophy, Dipshit. How many times must that be repeated to you?

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.

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

I remember addressing your argument that the law isn't force when it isn't present or acting on anyone. Did you address my counter argument to that which was that my argument is about when the law is active, not inactive.

Yet you brought up access to resources.


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.

I keep reiterating things you seem confused about, like the fact that I mention justness in relation to libertarian morality, not my own.

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

I remember my counter argument. Did you address that or are you just repeating your old argument that I already addressed?

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.

Ok. First, what force does it take for me to walk? It certainly requires energy and force to move my legs and provide my body with motion. That however isn't an objective force being used on you.

Secondly, is anything your property objectively? Or just subjectively according to some made up legal code? My argument is about objective uses of force, not subjective ones.

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.

What subjective notions?

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

I brought it up as a counter to one of your claims.

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.

No it wasn't you moron. The context of my argument about private property was that it takes objective uses of force and threats of force to create and maintain it. The context of your comment about private property was what you imagined my feelings were over not having access to yours.

No shit.


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

Whatever guy. I don't really care about the specific words you used.

That's not even what you said. "You're bothered by not having access to my resources" is the exact quote and I'm correcting you. I do, through my vote and taxes. This is called a counter argument. Do you have a counter argument to my counter argument or are you just going to fucking cry all night?

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


You mean the one you misinterpeted?


You murdered your own misinterpetation, dumbass.

As did you and they were your own words, Clown.

Of what, intellectually honest dialogue?

Do you know how interpretation works?


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


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.

It's fucking hilarious that you still don't really understand the way in which things are subjective or objective. It isn't that fucking hard guy. What's wrong with you?

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.

Those examples lead me to believe its what I described them as, subjective philosophical musings.

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

My meaning isn't. When I told you tyrant wasn't subjective I wasn't talking in the context of the word itself but the meaning of someone who usurps someone else's sovereignty. The context in which tyrant the word is subjective is in the fact you can use it to mean something else other than a usurper or sovereignty. It might confuse some people at first but you can use the word tyrant to convey whatever meaning you want.

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.

I'm not too broken up about.

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 laugh at the way you try throw things back in face. Like a child trying to use an insult they don't get the meaning of.

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

I never claimed otherwise idiot. I made no claims about what words came before or after my use of the word respect.

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 also never claimed you didn't have a natural ability to desire things for yourself or for you to claim things for yourself. I only said the only way to actually enforce those claims is through uses of force against the people who would reject those claims.

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.

It absolutely happened to people who were related to me. My African ancestors didn't arrive in the Caribbean through their own volition.

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?

Deplorable mutants is no more a moral conviction to me than calling someone an asshole is. Its an expression of personal sentiment. I personally dislike slavers, I don't think the universe does or cares, one way or the other.

Yet you argued against them.

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.

I don’t think I said that.


Yet you used the word “unjust”.

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

Notice the word enforced? Of course there is no force when the law is not enforced. The word itself tells you what's going on here. When the law is being enforced it's force. When it's not being enforced then it's nothing.

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.

And I would say you know as well as I do that my argument isn't about when the law is absent or inactive but when it is active and acting but honestly I don't think you know better. You might just be this fucking dense.

Exactly. Which means law itself is not force.

The law is force is a metaphor for the instances when it is acting and asserting itself on people. Whenever the law is doing something it is an agent of force.

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

You said there was bias in my argument but my argument is that F=MA. Where's the bias?

Absolutely nothing. Which is exactly my point.


I’ve explained to you what they mean.


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

I was discussing how private property is incompatible with libertarian moral absolutes. I find that inconsistency interesting and worth discussing. I can't speak for you or why you bothered to interject.

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

I did. Do you understand that someone can discuss beliefs they themselves don't believe in?

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

I've said repeatedly to you that unjustness isn't even a real thing. Nothing is unjust. Are you having trouble understanding this? You don't have to ask about all these different circumstances because there is no circumstance where justness or unjustness become real.

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

Is that you trying to be clear? It seems more like a leading question. Do you perhaps want to make arguments on behalf of justice or private property rather than trying to back door your way into a concession that really isn't about this one instance your invested in?

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


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

Did you forget again what you were arguing against?

You never move passed repeating the same arguments I've already addressed so yes.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

What do the fantasies of the Founders have to do with me?

Absolutely nothing.

I don't share those fantasies but it seems like you're confirming that you mean extra legal as a subjective philosophical idea.

No, dumbass, I’m confirming that the Founding Fathers viewed certain rights in an extralegal sense.

I explained to you in my last post that I was not discussing rights, that this was just an example of the use of the word “extralegal”.

Goddamn, man.

I don't view anything as unjust because it's not a real thing.

Good. So we can agree that my removing you from my property has no significance beyond the simple law of motion, correct?

It's relevant to libertarian philosophy, Dipshit. How many times must that be repeated to you?

No, it’s not relevant to libertarian philosophy. At least, not the part that you explained to me. The part of their philosophy that you explained to me and what you argued against was simply their beleifs about self defense. You did not mention anything about resources in that context.

I remember addressing your argument that the law isn't force when it isn't present or acting on anyone. Did you address my counter argument to that which was that my argument is about when the law is active, not inactive.

You forgot that too?

I keep reiterating things you seem confused about, like the fact that I mention justness in relation to libertarian morality, not my own.

Again, irrelevant. You explained to me the part of libertarian philosophy you were countering and when I made a comment in that context, you apparently forgot explaining it to me and snidely ask what I know about libertarian philosophy, as if it was some secret arcane knowledge I could never understand.

I remember my counter argument. Did you address that or are you just repeating your old argument that I already addressed?

And you forgot another one.

Don’t you find it a little embarrassing the way you forget everything you’re arguing against?

Ok. First, what force does it take for me to walk?

F=MA. In this case, your brain sends a signal to your muscles and your muscles exert force on an unmoving object- your leg and foot bones - to move the leg.

But to be physologically more accurate, your muscles exert force in a pulling motion to move the bones (muscles only pull; they never push). But the effect is basically the same.

Are you telling me that the force it takes to walk never occurred to you when citing the formula?

It certainly requires energy and force to move my legs and provide my body with motion. That however isn't an objective force being used on you.

Wait, are we talking about the objecive law of force and motion or your subjective ideas about access to resources? If it’s the former then force on you is irrelevant. If it’s the latter then F=MA is irrelevant, isn’t it?

Secondly, is anything your property objectively? Or just subjectively according to some made up legal code? My argument is about objective uses of force, not subjective ones.

If we’re only talking about law of force and motion, what difference does it make?

What subjective notions?

Forgot that too, huh?

I brought it up as a counter to one of your claims.

My claim had nothing to do with taxes. My claim was about resources on my private property which you brought up and which we have been discussing for weeks.

No it wasn't you moron. The context of my argument about private property was that it takes objective uses of force and threats of force to create and maintain it.

Which has nothing to do with resources, does it?

The context of your comment about private property was what you imagined my feelings were over not having access to yours.

Hey, you’re the one who brought up resources in the context of “objective uses of force and threats of force to create and maintain it.”, not me.

Whatever guy. I don't really care about the specific words you used.

You cared enough to misinterpret them.

That's not even what you said. "You're bothered by not having access to my resources" is the exact quote and I'm correcting you. I do, through my vote and taxes. This is called a counter argument. Do you have a counter argument to my counter argument or are you just going to fucking cry all night?

So you took the trouble to look that up but couldn’t be bothered to look up “extralegal”?

But anyway, the context is still private property and your remark about taxes was still irrelevant. On top of all that, if you had access to my taxes the whole time then why did you even bring up resources in the context of ability to go where you please?

As did you and they were your own words, Clown.

You’re the dumbass who said he wanted freedom to go where you please to have access to resources only to tell me you already already have access through taxes.

It's fucking hilarious that you still don't really understand the way in which things are subjective or objective. It isn't that fucking hard guy. What's wrong with you?

You’re the one who said all words are subjective, dumbass. What’s wrong with you?

Are you now changing your argument to say words can be objective?

Those examples lead me to believe its what I described them as, subjective philosophical musings.

So you remember the examples? Then why did you ask for examples?

As for what they led you to believe, that’s your hangup to deal with. It had absolutely nothing to do with philosophy or objectivism/subjectivism. The subject was the word ”extralegal” and how it’s used.

My meaning isn't.

Yes, it is. If something is subjective then it is subjective to something else, not to itself. Ergo, “tyrants” is subjective to what you wish to convey which in turn is subjective to your feelings.

After all your lectures, you don’t know this?

When I told you tyrant wasn't subjective I wasn't talking in the context of the word itself but the meaning of someone who usurps someone else's sovereignty.

When I said the word is subjective you said it was not.

The context in which tyrant the word is subjective is in the fact you can use it to mean something else other than a usurper or sovereignty. It might confuse some people at first but you can use the word tyrant to convey whatever meaning you want.

Remember what you said to me after I explained “extralegal” to you twice and gave you examples? You said “It means illegal to me.”

You couldn’t be bothered to even try to understand what I meant. You asked for examples you knew I already gave you and then you try to twist a simple explanation of a word meaning into a statement about subjective philosophies.

So you’ll forgive me if I don’t give a loose shit in a high wind what you meant by “tyrants”.

I'm not too broken up about.

A hypocrite never is.

I laugh at the way you try throw things back in face. Like a child trying to use an insult they don't get the meaning of.

I laugh at the way you truly don’t understand what subjective means.

If words are subjective and “they can mean whatever we want them to mean” (your words) then it is subjective. That’s it.

I understand what you meant but what you meant is subjective to one definition of the word.

I never claimed otherwise idiot. I made no claims about what words came before or after my use of the word respect.

They’re the words you used dumbass. Are you saying you did not make a claim with your own words?

I also never claimed you didn't have a natural ability to desire things for yourself or for you to claim things for yourself.

I know you didn’t, dumbass. My point was that you don’t consider that fact when talking about your own ability to go where you please.

I only said the only way to actually enforce those claims is through uses of force against the people who would reject those claims.

Right. But my point is I have the same ability. So your ability to go where you please is nullified by this fact.

It absolutely happened to people who were related to me. My African ancestors didn't arrive in the Caribbean through their own volition.

Didn’t say it didn’t.

Deplorable mutants is no more a moral conviction to me than calling someone an asshole is. Its an expression of personal sentiment.

Because you feel slavery is unjust.

I personally dislike slavers, I don't think the universe does or cares, one way or the other.

But it’s a subjective term, yes?

Notice the word enforced? Of course there is no force when the law is not enforced. The word itself tells you what's going on here. When the law is being enforced it's force. When it's not being enforced then it's nothing.

Then law is not force, is it?

“Law is force when we choose to enforce it” is true. “Law is force” is not true.

And I would say you know as well as I do that my argument isn't about when the law is absent or inactive but when it is active and acting but honestly I don't think you know better. You might just be this fucking dense.

I’m not arguing against what you meant, dumbass, I’m arguing against your words.

The law is force is a metaphor for the instances when it is acting and asserting itself on people. Whenever the law is doing something it is an agent of force.

Right. So is going where you please.

You said there was bias in my argument but my argument is that F=MA.

No, it’s not. Your argument was that it takes “force and violence” (your words) to force or stop you from going where you please.

It wasn’t until later after I pressed you on what you meant by “freedom” to go where you please that you finally conceded that you only had the ability to go where you please. It wasn’t until after this point that you started citing the formula.

Where's the bias?

And yet another argument you forgot. I already explained this.

I was discussing how private property is incompatible with libertarian moral absolutes. I find that inconsistency interesting and worth discussing. I can't speak for you or why you bothered to interject.

Am I to understand then that you’re not implying anything beyond this? That forcibly removing you from property ultimately has no significance?

I did. Do you understand that someone can discuss beliefs they themselves don't believe in?

Certainly. But my perspective on this is influenced by the things you told me about what you believe about force and law. Also that you specifically point out that you have the ability to go where you please and that it takes force to stop you while ignoring that everyone else has the same ability they can use to claim land and stop you from trespassing on that land.

Merely citing freedom of movement for yourself is pointless in the bigger picture that everyone does.

I've said repeatedly to you that unjustness isn't even a real thing. Nothing is unjust. Are you having trouble understanding this? You don't have to ask about all these different circumstances because there is no circumstance where justness or unjustness become real.

I understand you don’t think justness is a thing. I’m asking if you’re merely saying that it would be unjust for a libertarian to use force to defend property within the context of his own libertarian beliefs about self defense?

Is that you trying to be clear?

It’s me asking you to be clear, dumbass.

It seems more like a leading question.

Since you’ve said you don’t believe in justness, it should be easy to answer.

Do you perhaps want to make arguments on behalf of justice or private property rather than trying to back door your way into a concession that really isn't about this one instance your invested in?

This is a rather transparent attempt to dodge a simple question. The question simply asks (given your lack of belief in the concept of justness) if you are thus saying my removing you from my property is not unjust. More to the point, are you saying the concept of justness does not apply here at all for you?

You never move passed repeating the same arguments I've already addressed so yes.

So you now admit addressing my arguments? Then why are you always feigning ignorance about my arguments?

You’re talking in circles again.

 

[Curried Goats]

Absolutely nothing.


No, dumbass, I’m confirming that the Founding Fathers viewed certain rights in an extralegal sense.

I explained to you in my last post that I was not discussing rights, that this was just an example of the use of the word “extralegal”.

And it keeps sounds like you're talking about subjective philosophical musings like I said from the beginning. What are you still crying over this for?

Goddamn, man.


Good. So we can agree that my removing you from my property has no significance beyond the simple law of motion, correct?

I don't know that it has any significance at all. What the fuck does motion have to do with whatever point you're trying to make?

No, it’s not relevant to libertarian philosophy. At least, not the part that you explained to me. The part of their philosophy that you explained to me and what you argued against was simply their beleifs about self defense. You did not mention anything about resources in that context.

My argument was about force and private property. The resources part of the equation pertains to private property. That's objectively what private property is. The keeping of resources for yourself.


And now I accidentally hit the reply button so Im going to have to rush this before it locks me out of my reply and this is so long and tedious so bear with me.

You forgot that too?


Again, irrelevant. You explained to me the part of libertarian philosophy you were countering and when I made a comment in that context, you apparently forgot explaining it to me and snidely ask what I know about libertarian philosophy, as if it was some secret arcane knowledge I could never understand.


And you forgot another one.

Don’t you find it a little embarrassing the way you forget everything you’re arguing against?

Nope. Your points are long and tedious and often without any coherent point.

F=MA. In this case, your brain sends a signal to your muscles and your muscles exert force on an unmoving object- your leg and foot bones - to move the leg.

But to be physologically more accurate, your muscles exert force in a pulling motion to move the bones (muscles only pull; they never push). But the effect is basically the same.

Are you telling me that the force it takes to walk never occurred to you when citing the formula?

What does this have to do with anything? What even is the argument you're trying to make? You say you want to counter me but my argument isn't about whether it takes force to walk, it's about whether i need to use force against you to walk where i want and i don't. You blame me for being confused? You keep making these weird out of context counter arguments to things I'm not arguing against.

Wait, are we talking about the objecive law of force and motion or your subjective ideas about access to resources? If it’s the former then force on you is irrelevant. If it’s the latter then F=MA is irrelevant, isn’t it?

I was talking about force in relation to libertarian moral absolutes. It seems like you want to talk argue about something else. None of that is relevant is you're arguing about something else besides force in relation to libertarian moral absolutes.

If we’re only talking about law of force and motion, what difference does it make?

Forgot that too, huh?


My claim had nothing to do with taxes. My claim was about resources on my private property which you brought up and which we have been discussing for weeks.

I never said your claim was about taxes you illiterate Moron. I brought up taxes in my counter to your claim.

Which has nothing to do with resources, does it?

It does. Private property is about keeping resources for yourself.

Also i accidently hit the post button so Ill get to the rest in the next post.

Hey, you’re the one who brought up resources in the context of “objective uses of force and threats of force to create and maintain it.”, not me.

You cared enough to misinterpret them.

So you took the trouble to look that up but couldn’t be bothered to look up “extralegal”?

But anyway, the context is still private property and your remark about taxes was still irrelevant. On top of all that, if you had access to my taxes the whole time then why did you even bring up resources in the context of ability to go where you please?

You’re the dumbass who said he wanted freedom to go where you please to have access to resources only to tell me you already already have access through taxes.


You’re the one who said all words are subjective, dumbass. What’s wrong with you?

Are you now changing your argument to say words can be objective?


So you remember the examples? Then why did you ask for examples?

As for what they led you to believe, that’s your hangup to deal with. It had absolutely nothing to do with philosophy or objectivism/subjectivism. The subject was the word ”extralegal” and how it’s used.


Yes, it is. If something is subjective then it is subjective to something else, not to itself. Ergo, “tyrants” is subjective to what you wish to convey which in turn is subjective to your feelings.

After all your lectures, you don’t know this?




When I said the word is subjective you said it was not.


Remember what you said to me after I explained “extralegal” to you twice and gave you examples? You said “It means illegal to me.”

You couldn’t be bothered to even try to understand what I meant. You asked for examples you knew I already gave you and then you try to twist a simple explanation of a word meaning into a statement about subjective philosophies.

So you’ll forgive me if I don’t give a loose shit in a high wind what you meant by “tyrants”.


A hypocrite never is.

I laugh at the way you truly don’t understand what subjective means.

If words are subjective and “they can mean whatever we want them to mean” (your words) then it is subjective. That’s it.

I understand what you meant but what you meant is subjective to one definition of the word.

They’re the words you used dumbass. Are you saying you did not make a claim with your own words?


I know you didn’t, dumbass. My point was that you don’t consider that fact when talking about your own ability to go where you please.


Right. But my point is I have the same ability. So your ability to go where you please is nullified by this fact.


Didn’t say it didn’t.


Because you feel slavery is unjust.


But it’s a subjective term, yes?


Then law is not force, is it?

“Law is force when we choose to enforce it” is true. “Law is force” is not true.


I’m not arguing against what you meant, dumbass, I’m arguing against your words.


Right. So is going where you please.


No, it’s not. Your argument was that it takes “force and violence” (your words) to force or stop you from going where you please.

It wasn’t until later after I pressed you on what you meant by “freedom” to go where you please that you finally conceded that you only had the ability to go where you please. It wasn’t until after this point that you started citing the formula.


And yet another argument you forgot. I already explained this.

Am I to understand then that you’re not implying anything beyond this? That forcibly removing you from property ultimately has no significance?


Certainly. But my perspective on this is influenced by the things you told me about what you believe about force and law. Also that you specifically point out that you have the ability to go where you please and that it takes force to stop you while ignoring that everyone else has the same ability they can use to claim land and stop you from trespassing on that land.

Merely citing freedom of movement for yourself is pointless in the bigger picture that everyone does.


I understand you don’t think justness is a thing. I’m asking if you’re merely saying that it would be unjust for a libertarian to use force to defend property within the context of his own libertarian beliefs about self defense?


It’s me asking you to be clear, dumbass.


Since you’ve said you don’t believe in justness, it should be easy to answer.


This is a rather transparent attempt to dodge a simple question. The question simply asks (given your lack of belief in the concept of justness) if you are thus saying my removing you from my property is not unjust. More to the point, are you saying the concept of justness does not apply here at all for you?

So you now admit addressing my arguments? Then why are you always feigning ignorance about my arguments?

You’re talking in circles again.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

'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

This sort of crap isn't Marxism, it's progressive liberalism and is used to collapse society so that the real Socialist can take over. The idiots who helped them come to power will be the second group to be reeducated or murdered. The first will be those with the guts to fight against the socialist.

 

[Curried Goats]

Hey, you’re the one who brought up resources in the context of “objective uses of force and threats of force to create and maintain it.”, not me.

I did. In the context of private property and libertarian moral absolutes. You can't drop the part about it being an argument against libertarian moral absolutes and make it about something else.

You cared enough to misinterpret them.

So you took the trouble to look that up but couldn’t be bothered to look up “extralegal”?

But anyway, the context is still private property and your remark about taxes was still irrelevant. On top of all that, if you had access to my taxes the whole time then why did you even bring up resources in the context of ability to go where you please?

Because the context of that argument was a counter to libertarian moral absolutes.

You’re the dumbass who said he wanted freedom to go where you please to have access to resources only to tell me you already already have access through taxes.

I wasn't making any argument about what I want. I was making objective arguments about force and private property. The objective description of private property is that of resources a person is keeping for themselves through threats and uses of force.

You’re the one who said all words are subjective, dumbass. What’s wrong with you?

I did. You just don't understand what that means.

Are you now changing your argument to say words can be objective?

I'm saying what I've been saying to from the beginning. Meaning can be judged for accuracy.

So you remember the examples? Then why did you ask for examples?

As for what they led you to believe, that’s your hangup to deal with. It had absolutely nothing to do with philosophy or objectivism/subjectivism. The subject was the word ”extralegal” and how it’s used.

So far you've only used it to describe subjective philosophical musings like I identified from the start.

Yes, it is. If something is subjective then it is subjective to something else, not to itself. Ergo, “tyrants” is subjective to what you wish to convey which in turn is subjective to your feelings.

After all your lectures, you don’t know this?

What? Tyrants is subjective to what you wish to convey?

What's the idea that you're trying to express here? I'm saying all words are entirely made up and so someone can make up a definition of cool that means hips, rather than a statement about temperature. In other words, words themselves have no objective meaning until a person gives them one. I certainly mean to convey a particular message when I speak or type a sentence. That meaning itself isn't subjective. When I say I'm hungry it means I'm hungry, not whatever you want it to mean.

When I said the word is subjective you said it was not.

If you meant that as a statement in the context that all words are subjective then I misunderstood your meaning. If you mean to say that it's subjective that Slavers are usurpers of sovereignty then no. That's a fact.

Remember what you said to me after I explained “extralegal” to you twice and gave you examples? You said “It means illegal to me.”

Yep. And I conceded that it means something else to you. That's the subjective nature of words, not meaning.

You couldn’t be bothered to even try to understand what I meant. You asked for examples you knew I already gave you and then you try to twist a simple explanation of a word meaning into a statement about subjective philosophies.

I've spent this entire time trying to understand what you mean....

So you’ll forgive me if I don’t give a loose shit in a high wind what you meant by “tyrants”.

Ok.

No need to be so angry.

A hypocrite never is.

I laugh at the way you truly don’t understand what subjective means.

If words are subjective and “they can mean whatever we want them to mean” (your words) then it is subjective. That’s it.

People can use them to mean whatever they want but they do mean a particular thing when they use them. I understand that's confusing to you but you are a moron so don't think too hard about it.

I understand what you meant but what you meant is subjective to one definition of the word.

They’re the words you used dumbass. Are you saying you did not make a claim with your own words?

What people mean when they're using words isn't subjective moron, words themselves are. Words are like tools on a shelf. People can come pick those tools up to use in whatever way they want. Someone could use a screw driver to screw in a screw, someone else can pick it up to slice open a box. The screwdrivers purpose like any particular word isn't objective. It can be used to tighten screws or open boxes or any other number of things. But objectively if someone is using it to tighten a screw they aren't using it to open a box. Understand?

I know you didn’t, dumbass. My point was that you don’t consider that fact when talking about your own ability to go where you please.

Because that fact has nothing to do with my argument. Why would I consider it? My argument was about how it doesn't require me to use force against others to go where I please. Not that moving my body doesn't produce force.

Right. But my point is I have the same ability. So your ability to go where you please is nullified by this fact.

I never argued that you don't have the ability to go where you please and I don't understand what you mean by your ability nullifies my ability. Your ability to walk doesn't cripple me.

Didn’t say it didn’t.


Because you feel slavery is unjust.

Nope. I also don't think its evil because none of those are real things. It's just something I personally detest. Are you just going to make believe my belief system for the sake of your argument?

But it’s a subjective term, yes?


Then law is not force, is it?

It is. What I mean to convey behind that statement is that when people and society act through the law they are acting with force. No one is arguing with you that the law isn't exerting any force when it isnt acting. That just goes without saying. At least it did until you felt the need to state the obvious.

“Law is force when we choose to enforce it” is true. “Law is force” is not true.

Only when you pretend that statement means something other than what I meant. That statement isn't about the absence of law but the presence of it. This you trying to tell me I mean something else when I tell you I'm hungry.

I’m not arguing against what you meant, dumbass, I’m arguing against your words.

Exactly.....

Who cares what I mean when you can pretend my words mean something else....

Right. So is going where you please.


No, it’s not. Your argument was that it takes “force and violence” (your words) to force or stop you from going where you please.

Yes.... in other words. F=MA. Where is the bias? Is it the word violence that's throwing you off? Violence isn't an expression of feeling here but simply the description of a physical force meant to abuse, injure, harm or destroy.

It wasn’t until later after I pressed you on what you meant by “freedom” to go where you please that you finally conceded that you only had the ability to go where you please. It wasn’t until after this point that you started citing the formula.

First I didn't concede anything. I merely used different methods and words to try to convey to you the same meaning that you seem unable or unwilling to comprehend. Secondly, freedom and ability mean the same thing in this instance. Freedom of motion and thought is an innate ability that individuals possess. The formula, F=MA, is just another way of me saying that it takes force against me to not respect this innate ability, and by not respect, I mean to interfere with my freedom of motion and thought. It's been the same argument from the beginning and despite the various and numerous way I've repeated this argument to you over however many months this has been going on for now your counter argument was about how well actually it takes force for me to walk!

What is that even a counter to? Who was arguing otherwise?

And yet another argument you forgot. I already explained this.

Am I to understand then that you’re not implying anything beyond this? That forcibly removing you from property ultimately has no significance?

My argument in that regard is about more than your pretty grievance over property. It's about how there is no significance to any use of force beyond what anyone subjectively gives it.

Certainly. But my perspective on this is influenced by the things you told me about what you believe about force and law. Also that you specifically point out that you have the ability to go where you please and that it takes force to stop you while ignoring that everyone else has the same ability they can use to claim land and stop you from trespassing on that land.

Except my argument isn't about how they can't or are not allowed to use force. My argument is that they can only claim land and keep it through uses of force against others. You're trying to use my argument for your purposes but it doesn't work that way. People don't need to use force against you to walk while you're admitting the willingness to use force against others to keep them off land you want to claim for yourself.

Merely citing freedom of movement for yourself is pointless in the bigger picture that everyone does.

Ponlintless in what regard? It's objectively true that I have freedom of motion and thought. It's objectively true that you need to use force against others to maintain possession of a piece of land you want for yourself and its an objective fact that walking where I want isn't an objective assault against you unless I happen to be stepping on you.

I understand you don’t think justness is a thing. I’m asking if you’re merely saying that it would be unjust for a libertarian to use force to defend property within the context of his own libertarian beliefs about self defense?

Yes. That is what I've been saying to you for quite some time now.

It’s me asking you to be clear, dumbass.

I really don't know how I could of been any clearer about that.

Since you’ve said you don’t believe in justness, it should be easy to answer.


This is a rather transparent attempt to dodge a simple question. The question simply asks (given your lack of belief in the concept of justness) if you are thus saying my removing you from my property is not unjust. More to the point, are you saying the concept of justness does not apply here at all for you?

It would be an easier question to answer if it weren't so obviously trying to lead to a specific answer that you want. I however don't feel inclined to help you make that argument so I'm answering in way that makes it clear my view point is about all perceived instances of injustness and not just the one you're interested in. Nothing is unjust because unjustness isn't real. That might not be the answer that you're fishing for but it is my answer on justness.

So you now admit addressing my arguments? Then why are you always feigning ignorance about my arguments?

You’re talking in circles again.

I'm not feigning ignorance on what some of your arguments are or about. Like why does it matter that it requires force to walk? That's still confusing me.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

And it keeps sounds like you're talking about subjective philosophical musings like I said from the beginning.

No it doesn’t. I’ve explained to you twice now that I’m not talking about rights. You‘re stupid but you’re not that stupid.

What are you still crying over this for?

The word has been explained to you twice, with examples. But you ask for examples you knew were already given anyway.
It’s been explained to you twice that I’m not discussing rights, I’m talking about the word “extralegal”. But you insist I’m talking about philosophical musings anyway.

I’m not the one crying here, you are. Either that or you’re just playing games. Which amounts to the same thing.

I don't know that it has any significance at all. What the fuck does motion have to do with whatever point you're trying to make?

What the fuck do resources have to do with motion?

My argument was about force and private property. The resources part of the equation pertains to private property. That's objectively what private property is. The keeping of resources for yourself.

Which, again, raises the question as to what taxes have to do with this.

And now I accidentally hit the reply button so Im going to have to rush this before it locks me out of my reply and this is so long and tedious so bear with me.

Nope. Your points are long and tedious and often without any coherent point.

That doesn’t explain why you keep forgetting what you’re arguing.

What does this have to do with anything?

I knew that one would throw you for a loop. I laughed as I typed it.

But anyway, as funny as it was to me, I’m being serious. My comments there have to do with F=MA which you brought up.

What even is the argument you're trying to make?

That it takes force (F=MA) to walk.

You say you want to counter me but my argument isn't about whether it takes force to walk, it's about whether i need to use force against you to walk where i want and i don't.

You’re the one who cited the law of motion, not me.

You blame me for being confused?

I never said I was confused.

You keep making these weird out of context counter arguments to things I'm not arguing against.

I’m not confused at all that you made F=MA your argument so I’m arguing in the context you provided. You did say in your last post that your argument is F=MA, did you not?

I was talking about force in relation to libertarian moral absolutes. It seems like you want to talk argue about something else. None of that is relevant is you're arguing about something else besides force in relation to libertarian moral absolutes.

Then, again, what do resources and taxes have to do with libertarian moral absolutes?

You were not talking to me about libertarian moral absolutes, you were talking to me about force required to remove you from my subjectively claimed property, thus impeding your ability to go where you please and access to resources.

I never said your claim was about taxes you illiterate Moron. I brought up taxes in my counter to your claim.

My claim was in the context of private property and you know this.

It does. Private property is about keeping resources for yourself.

Wrong. That’s what private property is about to you. In other words, your take on it is subjective.

I did. In the context of private property and libertarian moral absolutes. You can't drop the part about it being an argument against libertarian moral absolutes and make it about something else.

What do resources have to do with libertarian moral absolutes?

Because the context of that argument was a counter to libertarian moral absolutes.

The fact remains that taxes have nothing to do with libertarian moral absolutes. Specifically, the justification of force in defense of property.

I wasn't making any argument about what I want. I was making objective arguments about force and private property. The objective description of private property is that of resources a person is keeping for themselves through threats and uses of force.

No, the objective description of private property is not that of resources unless you’re talking about farmland or something.

I did. You just don't understand what that means.

I understood that when you said all words are subjective, you meant all words are subjective. Did I miss something?

I'm saying what I've been saying to from the beginning. Meaning can be judged for accuracy.

That’s not what you said in the beginning.

So far you've only used it to describe subjective philosophical musings like I identified from the start.

No, I did not, dumbass. I used it as an example to describe the meaning of “extralegal”.

Jesus fucking Christ in a bumper car.

And why did you ask for examples if you knew I gave you examples?

What? Tyrants is subjective to what you wish to convey?

What's the idea that you're trying to express here? I'm saying all words are entirely made up and so someone can make up a definition of cool that means hips, rather than a statement about temperature. In other words, words themselves have no objective meaning until a person gives them one. I certainly mean to convey a particular message when I speak or type a sentence. That meaning itself isn't subjective. When I say I'm hungry it means I'm hungry, not whatever you want it to mean.

What you mean is irrelevant to the fact that words are subjective.

If you meant that as a statement in the context that all words are subjective then I misunderstood your meaning. If you mean to say that it's subjective that Slavers are usurpers of sovereignty then no. That's a fact.

Not necessarily. Because..brace yourself..”sovereignty” is subjective and so is “usurpers” for that matter.

I really don’t give a shit what you think of slavers. I’m just reminding you what you’re always telling me.

Yep. And I conceded that it means something else to you. That's the subjective nature of words, not meaning.

You conceded it means something else to me but you did not concede what I meant, which is what you demanded of me.

You used a relatively obscure definition of respect to convey not interfere. It’s a bit of a stretch but the definition is there in the dictionary.

When I say “extralegal” in its primary definition, you insist it means “illegal” to you, which is not a definition of the word in any sense, form or context in that same dictionary.

You’re a craven hypocrite.

I've spent this entire time trying to understand what you mean....

No you haven’t. You’ve made a point of NOT understanding what I mean. Who do you think you’re kidding?

Ok.

No need to be so angry.

Didn’t I just say I don’t care?

People can use them to mean whatever they want but they do mean a particular thing when they use them. I understand that's confusing to you but you are a moron so don't think too hard about it.

“People can use them to mean whatever they want but they do mean a particular thing when they use them.” means words are subjective, moron.

This was the exact explanation you gave me to support your argument that words are subjective you stupid fuck.

What people mean when they're using words isn't subjective moron, words themselves are.

Which is exactly what I said, moron. But you argued with me and said the word was not subjective.

Words are like tools on a shelf. People can come pick those tools up to use in whatever way they want. Someone could use a screw driver to screw in a screw, someone else can pick it up to slice open a box. The screwdrivers purpose like any particular word isn't objective. It can be used to tighten screws or open boxes or any other number of things. But objectively if someone is using it to tighten a screw they aren't using it to open a box. Understand?

Okay, let’s run with this analogy. When we use screwdrivers to open boxes, they will function adequately for this purpose. But a screwdriver will not loosen a bolt.

It’s the same with words: some words simply do not function in certain contexts except maybe as a metaphor.

“Tyrants” can function as an adjective for slavers but the word itself is subjective and that was all I said.

In addition, “Extralegal” does not, and will not, function as an alternative to “illegal”. It doesn’t even come close.

Because that fact has nothing to do with my argument.

Your argument is F=MA. That is what you said.

Why would I consider it?

Because it is the law of MOTION. You know, that thing that gets you to where you want to go.

My argument was about how it doesn't require me to use force against others to go where I please. Not that moving my body doesn't produce force.

Then F=MA is irrelevant.

I never argued that you don't have the ability to go where you please and I don't understand what you mean by your ability nullifies my ability. Your ability to walk doesn't cripple me.

As a point of argument, it is nullified by my equal ability to make choices and move freely.

Nope. I also don't think its evil because none of those are real things. It's just something I personally detest. Are you just going to make believe my belief system for the sake of your argument?

Are you going to make believe your opinions about slavers is not based on your feelings? Are you going to make believe morality is not rooted in feelings?

It is.

No, it is not. The only thing that is force, is force itself. It takes choice and action to exert force. Therefore, law is not force.

What I mean to convey behind that statement is that when people and society act through the law they are acting with force. No one is arguing with you that the law isn't exerting any force when it isnt acting. That just goes without saying. At least it did until you felt the need to state the obvious.

I understand what you mean. The problem is that what you mean is not “Law is force” but you insist on saying it anyway.

Only when you pretend that statement means something other than what I meant. That statement isn't about the absence of law but the presence of it. This you trying to tell me I mean something else when I tell you I'm hungry.

You mean like you saying “extralegal” means “illegal” when I tell you it doesn’t mean that and that it is not what I mean?

Exactly.....

Who cares what I mean when you can pretend my words mean something else....

Like you did?

Yes.... in other words. F=MA. Where is the bias?

I explained that already.

Is it the word violence that's throwing you off? Violence isn't an expression of feeling here but simply the description of a physical force meant to abuse, injure, harm or destroy.

No shit, dumbass. But violence in the context of simple law of motion implies much more than mere force and motion. It’s a fuck of a lot more than simply forcing someone off property and THAT is where your bias rears its ugly head.

You have feelings about the issue of private property and resources and it is blatantly obvious by some of the words you use.

First I didn't concede anything. I merely used different methods and words to try to convey to you the same meaning that you seem unable or unwilling to comprehend.

I comprehend words in the grammatical arrangement they are spoken. This is why I give you a hard time because grammatically, your words do not convey what you mean.

It’s like I’ve said many times already: you can’t express yourself worth a shit.

Secondly, freedom and ability mean the same thing in this instance.

Didn’t say they didn’t. I just wanted to be clear that you were merely talking about physical ability and not some form of right or privilege.

Freedom of motion and thought is an innate ability that individuals possess. The formula, F=MA, is just another way of me saying that it takes force against me to not respect this innate ability, and by not respect, I mean to interfere with my freedom of motion and thought. It's been the same argument from the beginning and despite the various and numerous way I've repeated this argument to you over however many months this has been going on for now your counter argument was about how well actually it takes force for me to walk!

As I said, you cited the formula, not me. If you’re going to cite scientific laws of physics, force and motion then it is incumbant upon me to remind you these laws apply to everyone and everything. This means your ability to walk on my property does not trump my ability to try and stop you.

Somewhere in the vast universe, two insignificant creatures are opposing each other. It means nothing more than that.

What is that even a counter to? Who was arguing otherwise?

Because you said your argument was always the same but it was not, you idiot. In the beginning your argument was simply that it takes force to “not respect” your freedom to go where you please.
Then you said F=MA was your argument but you didn’t bring that up until relatively recently.

My argument in that regard is about more than your pretty grievance over property.

You confronted libertarians about their beliefs about defense of property, dumbass. You’ve been arguing with me about freedom to move on property and access to resources.

You’re the one with the petty grievance about property.

It's about how there is no significance to any use of force beyond what anyone subjectively gives it.

I asked you if there was some sort of significance to removing you from property and you refused to answer. So if there’s no significance to any use of force, is there significance to you if they use force anyway?

Except my argument isn't about how they can't or are not allowed to use force.

I know it isn’t. But you forget they have the same ability.

My argument is that they can only claim land and keep it through uses of force against others. You're trying to use my argument for your purposes but it doesn't work that way. People don't need to use force against you to walk while you're admitting the willingness to use force against others to keep them off land you want to claim for yourself.

Yes, I am. So what? Is there a point beyond the obvious here?

Ponlintless in what regard?

In the bigger picture that everyone has the same ability. Was I not clear about that?

It's objectively true that I have freedom of motion and thought.

It’s objectively true that everyone does.

It's objectively true that you need to use force against others to maintain possession of a piece of land you want for yourself

No, it is not objectivey true. I’ve never needed to use force to maintain possession of my property.

and its an objective fact that walking where I want isn't an objective assault against you unless I happen to be stepping on you.

And what if I prevent you from accessing my property with a fence and locked gates?

Yes. That is what I've been saying to you for quite some time now.

Not really, no. You’ve been all over the map on this from libertarian beliefs about defense of property to ability to go where you please to scientific formulas for physics and motion.

I really don't know how I could of been any clearer about that.

Clearer than what? You didn’t even answer the question, dumbass.

Once again: You’re saying that my removing you from my property is not unjust?

It would be an easier question to answer if it weren't so obviously trying to lead to a specific answer that you want.

You mean an answer you don’t want to give.

I however don't feel inclined to help you make that argument

What argument? It was a question.

so I'm answering in way that makes it clear my view point is about all perceived instances of injustness and not just the one you're interested in. Nothing is unjust because unjustness isn't real. That might not be the answer that you're fishing for but it is my answer on justness.

I didn’t ask you for your thoughts on justness, I asked if you were saying my removing you is not unjust.

Since you don’t believe justness is a thing, I have to assume you don’t feel my removing you from my property is unjust. Therefore, my removing you is simply a matter of opposing forces as per the laws of motion and bears no significance beyond that.

This is where you say: “Why would you assume that?”. To which I would say: “See your own words: ‘I don’t believe justness is a thing.’”

I'm not feigning ignorance on what some of your arguments are or about. Like why does it matter that it requires force to walk? That's still confusing me.

Why does it matter that it requires force to remove you?

 

[Curried Goats]

No it doesn’t. I’ve explained to you twice now that I’m not talking about rights. You‘re stupid but you’re not that stupid.

The word has been explained to you twice, with examples. But you ask for examples you knew were already given anyway.
It’s been explained to you twice that I’m not discussing rights, I’m talking about the word “extralegal”. But you insist I’m talking about philosophical musings anyway.

I’m not the one crying here, you are. Either that or you’re just playing games. Which amounts to the same thing.

Confusion and stupidity are different things. I'm still confused by what extralegal means to you. I only remember the example of rights and rights, to me, are made up (subjective) philosophical musings. How else should I look at them to get an understanding of what meaning you're trying to convey with the word extralegal?

What the fuck do resources have to do with motion?


Which, again, raises the question as to what taxes have to do with this.


That doesn’t explain why you keep forgetting what you’re arguing.


I knew that one would throw you for a loop. I laughed as I typed it.

But anyway, as funny as it was to me, I’m being serious. My comments there have to do with F=MA which you brought up.

That it takes force (F=MA) to walk.

Ok. Is that point relevant to anything?

You’re the one who cited the law of motion, not me.


I never said I was confused.

I’m not confused at all that you made F=MA your argument so I’m arguing in the context you provided. You did say in your last post that your argument is F=MA, did you not?


Then, again, what do resources and taxes have to do with libertarian moral absolutes?

You were not talking to me about libertarian moral absolutes, you were talking to me about force required to remove you from my subjectively claimed property, thus impeding your ability to go where you please and access to resources.

In the context that using force against me to claim things you want for yourself would be unjust according to libertarian philosophy. I was never arguing this case to you outside the context of that libertarian moral absolute.

My claim was in the context of private property and you know this.


Wrong. That’s what private property is about to you. In other words, your take on it is subjective.

Private property is itself a subjective creation. Resources is just the word I'm using to describe all the things that you see in the world around you. Trees, grass, mountains, rivers, animals, metals, even houses. They're made up of wood or some other material. They have their own structure. You can look at them in the microscope and see the atoms and electrons that ultimately account for their mass. That's the objective way to look at the things around you. Objects comprised of a particular collection of mass and energy. Nowhere when you look objectively (unbiased) will you see that any of these things belongs to anyone else. That is a made up, subjective notion.

What do resources have to do with libertarian moral absolutes?

The fact remains that taxes have nothing to do with libertarian moral absolutes. Specifically, the justification of force in defense of property.

My argument to you about taxes was a separate one that has nothing at all to do with this argument. I made an entirely separate argument when you made a comment about how I don't have access to your resources.

No, the objective description of private property is not that of resources unless you’re talking about farmland or something.

If the word resources is throwing you off how about just things? Private property, objectively, is a collection of things you want to claim for yourself. Does that help you better understand?

I understood that when you said all words are subjective, you meant all words are subjective. Did I miss something?


That’s not what you said in the beginning.

No, I did not, dumbass. I used it as an example to describe the meaning of “extralegal”.

Jesus fucking Christ in a bumper car.

And why did you ask for examples if you knew I gave you examples?


What you mean is irrelevant to the fact that words are subjective.


Not necessarily. Because..brace yourself..”sovereignty” is subjective and so is “usurpers” for that matter.

I really don’t give a shit what you think of slavers. I’m just reminding you what you’re always telling me.

I never told you to strip words of all their meaning until nothing means anything. I made the simple factual point that words are made up. People make them up to mean things though and if you want to pretend not to understand my meaning when I say slavers were tyrants and by tyrants I mean usurpers of sovereignty, ok. I'm not trying to rob you of your ignorance.

I'm not pretending when I say I don't know what you mean by extralegal. My ignorance is genuine. You just seem salty.

You conceded it means something else to me but you did not concede what I meant, which is what you demanded of me.

You used a relatively obscure definition of respect to convey not interfere. It’s a bit of a stretch but the definition is there in the dictionary.

When I say “extralegal” in its primary definition, you insist it means “illegal” to you, which is not a definition of the word in any sense, form or context in that same dictionary.

I was thinking of it like a cop beating a confession out someone. A person going beyond what is allowed by law, i.e, extralegal, which I just took as a euphemism for illegal. When you explained it by giving the example of rights to life and liberty that our constitution and laws are based on to me that is just describing a made up philosophical musing which you say is wrong so now I'm at a loss in understanding the meaning you're trying to convey.

You’re a craven hypocrite.

No you haven’t. You’ve made a point of NOT understanding what I mean. Who do you think you’re kidding?

Didn’t I just say I don’t care?

“People can use them to mean whatever they want but they do mean a particular thing when they use them.” means words are subjective, moron.

This was the exact explanation you gave me to support your argument that words are subjective you stupid fuck.


Which is exactly what I said, moron. But you argued with me and said the word was not subjective.

I mistook your statement to be about my meaning behind the word tyrant itself. I didn't think you were making a pedantic point that's ultimately about the nature of all words but ok.

Okay, let’s run with this analogy. When we use screwdrivers to open boxes, they will function adequately for this purpose. But a screwdriver will not loosen a bolt.

It’s the same with words: some words simply do not function in certain contexts except maybe as a metaphor.

“Tyrants” can function as an adjective for slavers but the word itself is subjective and that was all I said.

Words are made up so they can function anyway the user wants. The key to understanding them is in understanding what the user wants to convey. I'm trying to understand what you mean by extralegal not telling you your meaning is wrong.

In addition, “Extralegal” does not, and will not, function as an alternative to “illegal”. It doesn’t even come close.

Really? Because when I go to thesaurus.com it says it's an adjective as in illegal and then gives a bunch of synonyms like illicit, criminal, outlawed, prohibited..

Thesaurus.com - The world's favorite online thesaurus!

Your argument is F=MA. That is what you said.


Because it is the law of MOTION. You know, that thing that gets you to where you want to go.


Then F=MA is irrelevant.


As a point of argument, it is nullified by my equal ability to make choices and move freely.

Explain that. How does your equal ability nullify anything about my argument?

Are you going to make believe your opinions about slavers is not based on your feelings? Are you going to make believe morality is not rooted in feelings?

I just said to you that my thoughts on slavers were based on my feelings, why would I turn around and deny that?

Morality might be based in feelings but people aren't really talking about their feelings when they talk about morality. They're conveying a philosophy of objective right and wrong just like people who talk about good and evil aren't trying to express what they think is a personal belief but a belief in an authority beyond themselves.

No, it is not. The only thing that is force, is force itself. It takes choice and action to exert force. Therefore, law is not force.

I understand what you mean. The problem is that what you mean is not “Law is force” but you insist on saying it anyway.

I'm saying the law is force because I'm cribbing Bastiat who said the law is force and I understood perfectly well what he meant and I mean the same. I don't know what you think I mean because what he and I mean is that when the law is acting on someone it is with force or threats of force. Neither of us mean the law is force to be about instances when there is no law or when it is inactive. That's simply a strawman.

You mean like you saying “extralegal” means “illegal” when I tell you it doesn’t mean that and that it is not what I mean?

I said that's what it meant to me and now to thesaurus.com apparently, as for what it means to you I'm still trying to sus that out. Not that you're being particularly helpful in that regard.

Like you did?


I explained that already.


No shit, dumbass. But violence in the context of simple law of motion implies much more than mere force and motion. It’s a fuck of a lot more than simply forcing someone off property and THAT is where your bias rears its ugly head.

Again, what bias? You haven't described any. There's more than one way that people protect their claims. They force people off and sometimes they attack and kill them. My argument encompasses all forceful actions that one could take to assert their claim.

You have feelings about the issue of private property and resources and it is blatantly obvious by some of the words you use.

Then describe it in my argument. Violence and force are what they are. They are actions people take to defend their claims. We can observe these actions. Bias is about how you feel about these actions but my argument is simply about my observations of them, not my feelings towards them.

I comprehend words in the grammatical arrangement they are spoken. This is why I give you a hard time because grammatically, your words do not convey what you mean.

Grammar is made up. My grammar is just different than yours. I speak Jamaican patois that I translate into a passable approximation of standard English. At least by my approximation. I'm always conveying what I mean, you might just be having a harder time understanding it as I am understanding what you mean by extralegal. I have the same issue with some of my Cuban friends and their version of spanglish only difference is I don't have the mistaken impression that there's some grammatically correct or incorrect way for them to express what they mean.

It’s like I’ve said many times already: you can’t express yourself worth a shit.

What's funny is your inability to recognize the subjective bias of this argument. Objectively everyone can express themselves. If you can't understand them, then the inability is objectively yours. Would this argument make sense to someone speaking to you in Japanese just because you don't understand Japanese?

Didn’t say they didn’t. I just wanted to be clear that you were merely talking about physical ability and not some form of right or privilege.

As I said, you cited the formula, not me. If you’re going to cite scientific laws of physics, force and motion then it is incumbant upon me to remind you these laws apply to everyone and everything. This means your ability to walk on my property does not trump my ability to try and stop you.

Who was arguing that the ability to walk trumps the ability to use force against people walking?

Somewhere in the vast universe, two insignificant creatures are opposing each other. It means nothing more than that.

Because you said your argument was always the same but it was not, you idiot. In the beginning your argument was simply that it takes force to “not respect” your freedom to go where you please.
Then you said F=MA was your argument but you didn’t bring that up until relatively recently.

Do you think those are different arguments?

F=MA is simply the defintion of Force in the argument it takes force to not respect my freedom to go where I please. I wasn't switching my argument on you, I was defining what I meant by force. If you want to move (accelerate) my mass off your property against my will when I'm intent on staying (an object at rest) you require some sort of physical force to do so. That's just an objective observation about the nature of mass and motion.

You confronted libertarians about their beliefs about defense of property, dumbass. You’ve been arguing with me about freedom to move on property and access to resources.

I don't know what you think I've been doing this entire time but my argument about objective uses of force against people to keep things for themselves has all been under the context of libertarian moral absolutes. If you want to have a different argument then it doesn't begin at me arguing about walking around property, it begins with you arguing what property even is and what your argument is even about because before you said your argument was a counter to my argument to libertarians.

You’re the one with the petty grievance about property.


I asked you if there was some sort of significance to removing you from property and you refused to answer. So if there’s no significance to any use of force, is there significance to you if they use force anyway?

I didn't refuse to answer, I answered that significance is subjective. Having force used against you for any reason probably has significance to the person who the force is being used against and probably in relation to the amount of force being used. Being flicked in the nose is less significant than being shot in the leg but that's from my subjective opinion. Maybe someone else really likes their nose, I can't really account for subjective variation.

As for me personally being removed somewhere sure. There's the significance of my displacement from my chosen position and whatever personal discomfort I endured being repositioned there.

I know it isn’t. But you forget they have the same ability.

I haven't forgotten that at all. What makes you imagine so?

Yes, I am. So what? Is there a point beyond the obvious here?


In the bigger picture that everyone has the same ability. Was I not clear about that?


It’s objectively true that everyone does.


No, it is not objectivey true. I’ve never needed to use force to maintain possession of my property.

The American government used and uses force and threats of force to create and maintain all private property within its borders. You hide behind the law to assert your claim and if you've never had to use force yourself or employ the government to use force on your behalf that only means you have never had to maintain your claim against any challenges to it. If your claim were challenged it would be force or threats of force that you would need to maintain it.

And what if I prevent you from accessing my property with a fence and locked gates?

I don't really understand what this question is in service of. You say you're not arguing about libertarian moral absolutes, fine. What's the significance of this locked fence question? What are we arguing about? If we're not arguing about what is morally wrong to a libertarian, namely force being used against other people in acts other than self defense, then what does it matter that you've put up a fence and locked it?

Not really, no. You’ve been all over the map on this from libertarian beliefs about defense of property to ability to go where you please to scientific formulas for physics and motion.

That's not all over the place, those three specific things, two of which are simply objective observations about nature and one a subjective notion of morality. It's not that difficult guy.

Clearer than what? You didn’t even answer the question, dumbass.

Once again: You’re saying that my removing you from my property is not unjust?

I'm saying unjust and just aren't real things. I don't know how to be any clearer than that. That is an answer, it's just not the answer you're fishing for. You want me to say it is not unjust but that's no different than wanting me to say it's not evil. Saying it's not evil could leave someone with the impression that I think there are ways in which to be evil or not be evil. Or in this case just or unjust but that isn't the case. I will keep reiterating that they aren't real things.

You mean an answer you don’t want to give.

Its an answer, just not the one you keep fishing for.

What argument? It was a question.


I didn’t ask you for your thoughts on justness, I asked if you were saying my removing you is not unjust.

That's like asking me if removing me is a unicorn. Unicorns aren't real.

Since you don’t believe justness is a thing, I have to assume you don’t feel my removing you from my property is unjust.

I can no more feel justness than I can a unicorn because neither exist.

Therefore, my removing you is simply a matter of opposing forces as per the laws of motion and bears no significance beyond that.

It bears subjective significance.

This is where you say: “Why would you assume that?”. To which I would say: “See your own words: ‘I don’t believe justness is a thing.’”

That's adorable and flattering fan fiction but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do but applaud. Bravo I guess...

Why does it matter that it requires force to remove you?

Sure, subjectively.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Confusion and stupidity are different things.

That’s what I’m always telling you.

I'm still confused by what extralegal means to you. I only remember the example of rights and rights, to me, are made up (subjective) philosophical musings.

First of all, rights were not the example, dumbass. That rights were an extralegal issue for the Founding Fathers was the example.

Secondly, “extralegal” has nothing to do with rights or any kind of philosophy unless the discussion is about rights or philosophy.

Third, the examples I gave you before the Founding Fathers example were the words “extraterrestrial” and “extracurricular”.

Got it?

How else should I look at them to get an understanding of what meaning you're trying to convey with the word extralegal?

By looking it up in the dictionary like I suggested, dumbass.

Ok. Is that point relevant to anything?

It’s relevant to the law of force and motion you brought up.

In the context that using force against me to claim things you want for yourself would be unjust according to libertarian philosophy. I was never arguing this case to you outside the context of that libertarian moral absolute.

The fact that you refuse to answer my question as to removing you from my property not being unjust suggests otherwise.

Private property is itself a subjective creation. Resources is just the word I'm using to describe all the things that you see in the world around you. Trees, grass, mountains, rivers, animals, metals, even houses. They're made up of wood or some other material. They have their own structure. You can look at them in the microscope and see the atoms and electrons that ultimately account for their mass. That's the objective way to look at the things around you. Objects comprised of a particular collection of mass and energy. Nowhere when you look objectively (unbiased) will you see that any of these things belongs to anyone else. That is a made up, subjective notion.

And my response to that was: Why is this significant?

My argument to you about taxes was a separate one that has nothing at all to do with this argument. I made an entirely separate argument when you made a comment about how I don't have access to your resources.

On private property.

First, private property was the context you provided and my comment was asked in that context. Second, if you have access to my resources (and everybody elses’) through taxes then why are we talking about private property at all? For that matter, why are we talking about resources?

Furthermore, not only do you have access through my income tax, you have access through the taxes I’m paying on the very property you want access to along with its resources.

So either you’re a greedy little bitch or you haven’t thought this whole thing through. Both of these reflect poorly on your judgment and thought processes.

If the word resources is throwing you off how about just things? Private property, objectively, is a collection of things you want to claim for yourself.

By “things” do you mean like a home to raise family and build a life without mooching off the government? A place that I can call my own, knowing it was achieved through the sweat of my brow? A place to return to after a hard day’s work, have beer and enjoy time with family? Yes, these are “things” I and everybody else wants to claim for ourselves.

Does that help you better understand?

I understand that a home means much more to many people than a collection of material possessions that contain “resources” than it does to you.

I never told you to strip words of all their meaning until nothing means anything. I made the simple factual point that words are made up. People make them up to mean things though and if you want to pretend not to understand my meaning when I say slavers were tyrants and by tyrants I mean usurpers of sovereignty, ok. I'm not trying to rob you of your ignorance.

You still haven’t answered the question: Why did you ask for examples when you knew I gave you examples?

I'm not pretending when I say I don't know what you mean by extralegal. My ignorance is genuine. You just seem salty.

You’re the one complaining you don’t understand a simple word after two explanations and examples. So who’s salty here?

I was thinking of it like a cop beating a confession out someone. A person going beyond what is allowed by law, i.e, extralegal, which I just took as a euphemism for illegal.

The question was how you viewed being removed from property: as immoral, unjust, unethical, secular or extralegal (outside a legal context) or whatever.

I was trying to get a sense of why removing someone from property is significant to you.

When you explained it by giving the example of rights to life and liberty that our constitution and laws are based on to me that is just describing a made up philosophical musing which you say is wrong so now I'm at a loss in understanding the meaning you're trying to convey.

Nope. I said nothing about the Constitution and I did not explain it by giving the example of rights to life and liberty. I specifically said at the end that the Founding Fathers viewed rights in an extralegal sense.

I mistook your statement to be about my meaning behind the word tyrant itself. I didn't think you were making a pedantic point that's ultimately about the nature of all words but ok.

It’s a pedantic point that you yourself have hit me with numerous times. In fact, you are the one who originally brought up the subjectivity of words when I used a certain word.

Words are made up so they can function anyway the user wants. The key to understanding them is in understanding what the user wants to convey. I'm trying to understand what you mean by extralegal not telling you your meaning is wrong.

You kept insisting the word meant “illegal” to you even after I told you it doesn’t mean that at all.

This was not so much about you not understanding what I meant, this is about you insisting the word meant something to you in a way that was not even one of the definitions in the dictionary.

Really? Because when I go to thesaurus.com it says it's an adjective as in illegal and then gives a bunch of synonyms like illicit, criminal, outlawed, prohibited..

Thesaurus.com - The world's favorite online thesaurus!

A thesaurus is not a dictionary and the word doesn’t even appear in the Webster’s thesaurus.

Explain that. How does your equal ability nullify anything about my argument?

I didn’t say it nullifies the argument, I said that, as a point of argument, your ability to go where you please is nullified by my equal ability to stop or remove you.

In other words, citing your mere ability to go where you please doesn’t mean shit in light of the fact I have the ability to stop you.

Is your argument simply about ability to move? If it is, so what?

I just said to you that my thoughts on slavers were based on my feelings, why would I turn around and deny that?

Morality might be based in feelings but people aren't really talking about their feelings when they talk about morality.

Ultimately, yes, they are. Morality was devised as a code of behavior based on how we feel about certain acts.

They're conveying a philosophy of objective right and wrong just like people who talk about good and evil aren't trying to express what they think is a personal belief but a belief in an authority beyond themselves.

Not necessarily. Even atheists like ourselves adhere to a moral code and that code is rooted in our empathy for others, especially our loved ones.

Call it what you want but our emotional reactions to certain transgressions are the same as anyone whose morality is viewed as something outside themselves. It is essentially a moral code in all but name.

I'm saying the law is force because I'm cribbing Bastiat who said the law is force and I understood perfectly well what he meant and I mean the same. I don't know what you think I mean because what he and I mean is that when the law is acting on someone it is with force or threats of force. Neither of us mean the law is force to be about instances when there is no law or when it is inactive. That's simply a strawman.

Call it a strawman if you wish but “law is force” is an overly simplistic description of what law truly is. Repeated often enough then those who have not given much thought to the concept will actually believe, erroneously, that law is force, just as you did.

You insisted again and again that law is force with no qualifying or clarifying explanations. It wasn’t until I pointed out to you that use of force is a choice and some laws are not always enforced that you finally qualified your remarks.

In short, you actually believed that law, in and of itself, is force.

I said that's what it meant to me and now to thesaurus.com apparently, as for what it means to you I'm still trying to sus that out. Not that you're being particularly helpful in that regard.

“not particularly helpful”? I explained it twice with two examples of other words with the same prefix.
I gave you an example context of the use of the word and you rabidly fixated on the word “rights”, not because you thought it had anything to do with the word meaning but because rights are subjective and you just wanted to throw that in my face.
I told you three times to look up the fucking word yourself which you refused to do and when you finally did, you give me a synonym from a thesaurus instead of the dictionary definition.

Instead of looking up the definition to learn what I meant, you went looking for some way to make me wrong, which you failed to do anyway.

Fucking idiot.

Again, what bias? You haven't described any.

Yes I did. I gave you three words I felt revealed your bias.

There's more than one way that people protect their claims. They force people off and sometimes they attack and kill them. My argument encompasses all forceful actions that one could take to assert their claim.

So I ask again: So what?

Then describe it in my argument. Violence and force are what they are. They are actions people take to defend their claims. We can observe these actions. Bias is about how you feel about these actions but my argument is simply about my observations of them, not my feelings towards them.

And I don’t think that’s entirely true. Again, the fact that you refuse to answer a simple question about my removing you not being unjust speaks volumes.

Grammar is made up. My grammar is just different than yours. I speak Jamaican patois that I translate into a passable approximation of standard English.

Your use of “law is force” has nothing to do with your Jamaican patois.

At least by my approximation. I'm always conveying what I mean, you might just be having a harder time understanding it as I am understanding what you mean by extralegal.

You’ve been here since you were eight years old. I don’t think Jamaican patois is your problem.

I have the same issue with some of my Cuban friends and their version of spanglish only difference is I don't have the mistaken impression that there's some grammatically correct or incorrect way for them to express what they mean.

Are they promoting ideas that are factually untrue?

What's funny is your inability to recognize the subjective bias of this argument.

If you mean I don’t know it’s an opinion, you would be incorrect.

Objectively everyone can express themselves.

Not everyone can express themselves in a way that others can understand or they simply don’t. Another poster (a black man) recently asked me this question:

“How she dead?”

What? I told him I didn’t understand the question so he cleaned up the grammar and used different words and said:

“How was she killed?”

I don’t think there’s that big a difference between our two grammars. As I said above, I think you really thought law is force.

If you can't understand them, then the inability is objectively yours. Would this argument make sense to someone speaking to you in Japanese just because you don't understand Japanese?

Don’t be an idiot. We’re not talking about different languages.

Who was arguing that the ability to walk trumps the ability to use force against people walking?

You tell me. You’re the one pointing out ability to move on your part but you say nothing about others having the same abilities.

Do you think those are different arguments?

Yes. One simply states that force exerted on an object will move that object. The other implies some sort of meaning to the use of that force by the words “freedom” and “access to resources”.

If nothing else, neither of these arguments has anything to do with libertarian moral absolutes and the question of their justification of defense of property.

F=MA is simply the defintion of Force in the argument it takes force to not respect my freedom to go where I please. I wasn't switching my argument on you, I was defining what I meant by force. If you want to move (accelerate) my mass off your property against my will when I'm intent on staying (an object at rest) you require some sort of physical force to do so. That's just an objective observation about the nature of mass and motion.

So what does this have to do with resources?

I don't know what you think I've been doing this entire time but my argument about objective uses of force against people to keep things for themselves has all been under the context of libertarian moral absolutes.

Are we talking about F=MA or about people “keeping things for themselves”?

I understand you’re talking about physical force but why is people keeping things for themselves significant? What does this have to do with the context of simple force?

If you want to have a different argument then it doesn't begin at me arguing about walking around property, it begins with you arguing what property even is and what your argument is even about because before you said your argument was a counter to my argument to libertarians.

Nope. You brought up “law is force” and F=MA and that’s what I’m addressing. That property is ultimately subjective is immaterial to me and not what I’m arguing against.

I didn't refuse to answer

Yes, you did refuse to answer. You accused me of asking a leading question.

, I answered that significance is subjective.

That’s not what I asked. I asked: If justness is not a thing you recognize then are you saying that removing you from my property is not unjust?

Having force used against you for any reason probably has significance to the person who the force is being used against and probably in relation to the amount of force being used. Being flicked in the nose is less significant than being shot in the leg but that's from my subjective opinion. Maybe someone else really likes their nose, I can't really account for subjective variation.

Then removing you from my property is not unjust, correct?

As for me personally being removed somewhere sure. There's the significance of my displacement from my chosen position and whatever personal discomfort I endured being repositioned there.

I’m not talking about your petty feelings about being manhandled, I’m talking about what it would mean to you to be forcibly removed from property beyond personal discomfiture.

I haven't forgotten that at all. What makes you imagine so?

Because you cite the formula for the law of motion to illustrate that it takes force to remove you but you don’t explain why this matters in light of the fact that everyone has the same abilities, including those removing you.

The American government used and uses force and threats of force to create and maintain all private property within its borders. You hide behind the law to assert your claim and if you've never had to use force yourself or employ the government to use force on your behalf that only means you have never had to maintain your claim against any challenges to it. If your claim were challenged it would be force or threats of force that you would need to maintain it.

Again, so what? Do you have a point beyond the obvious?

I don't really understand what this question is in service of. You say you're not arguing about libertarian moral absolutes, fine. What's the significance of this locked fence question? What are we arguing about? If we're not arguing about what is morally wrong to a libertarian, namely force being used against other people in acts other than self defense, then what does it matter that you've put up a fence and locked it?

You tell me. You’re the one who brought up resources and access to them.

That's not all over the place, those three specific things, two of which are simply objective observations about nature and one a subjective notion of morality. It's not that difficult guy.

These “objective observations” have nothing to do with resources, taxes or the libertarian beliefs about self defense.

I'm saying unjust and just aren't real things. I don't know how to be any clearer than that.

So then, my removing you from “things I want to keep for myself” doesn’t mean shit, does it?

That is an answer, it's just not the answer you're fishing for. You want me to say it is not unjust but that's no different than wanting me to say it's not evil. Saying it's not evil could leave someone with the impression that I think there are ways in which to be evil or not be evil. Or in this case just or unjust but that isn't the case. I will keep reiterating that they aren't real things.

So I can remove you without any judgment on your part other than being miffed at being manhandled, correct?

Its an answer, just not the one you keep fishing for.

What answer am I “fishing” for?

That's like asking me if removing me is a unicorn. Unicorns aren't real.

I can no more feel justness than I can a unicorn because neither exist.

It bears subjective significance.

And why is THAT significant?

That's adorable and flattering fan fiction but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do but applaud. Bravo I guess...

Sure, subjectively.

What? That doesn’t answer the question. Why does it matter that it requires force to remove you?

 

[Curried Goats]

That’s what I’m always telling you.


First of all, rights were not the example, dumbass. That rights were an extralegal issue for the Founding Fathers was the example.

Still not helpful in understanding what you mean.

Secondly, “extralegal” has nothing to do with rights or any kind of philosophy unless the discussion is about rights or philosophy.

You just said rights where an extralegal issue for the Founders and now you're saying extralegal has nothing to do with rights unless we're talking about rights but not when we're talking about other things like muffins. How am I not supposed to be confused about what you're trying to say?

Third, the examples I gave you before the Founding Fathers example were the words “extraterrestrial” and “extracurricular”.

Got it?

Sure, but those aren't examples of something else that you see as extralegal.

By looking it up in the dictionary like I suggested, dumbass.

Which still isn't going to help me understand what you're trying to say. Merriam says not sanctioned by law which to me sounds like it could be things that are illegal like beating a confession out of a suspect.

It’s relevant to the law of force and motion you brought up.

But not to any argument you're trying to make?

The fact that you refuse to answer my question as to removing you from my property not being unjust suggests otherwise.

I haven't refused, I'm just not answering how you want me to.

And my response to that was: Why is this significant?

Because of libertarian moral absolutes.

On private property.

First, private property was the context you provided and my comment was asked in that context. Second, if you have access to my resources (and everybody elses’) through taxes then why are we talking about private property at all? For that matter, why are we talking about resources?

Because of libertarian moral absolutes.

Furthermore, not only do you have access through my income tax, you have access through the taxes I’m paying on the very property you want access to along with its resources.

So either you’re a greedy little bitch or you haven’t thought this whole thing through. Both of these reflect poorly on your judgment and thought processes.

I have thought through the implications of libertarian moral absolutes, it's people like dblack who haven't and so they run away from me whenever I try to point out its inconsistencies to them.

By “things” do you mean like a home to raise family and build a life without mooching off the government? A place that I can call my own, knowing it was achieved through the sweat of my brow? A place to return to after a hard day’s work, have beer and enjoy time with family? Yes, these are “things” I and everybody else wants to claim for ourselves.

Yep. I know. That's part of my argument.

I understand that a home means much more to many people than a collection of material possessions that contain “resources” than it does to you.

That's called bias.

You still haven’t answered the question: Why did you ask for examples when you knew I gave you examples?

Because the one example you have of something that was extralegal (rights to the Founders) you turned around and said wasn't an example. The other examples are not examples of what else you think is extralegal they're just other words with extra at the beginning.

You’re the one complaining you don’t understand a simple word after two explanations and examples. So who’s salty here?

You still. I'm just genuinely confused and curious.

The question was how you viewed being removed from property: as immoral, unjust, unethical, secular or extralegal (outside a legal context) or whatever.

I don't really view it in any of those terms.

I view it as an act of forceful self interest.

I was trying to get a sense of why removing someone from property is significant to you.

It's significant in that force against others for purposes other than self defense is contrary to libertarian moral absolutes.

Nope. I said nothing about the Constitution and I did not explain it by giving the example of rights to life and liberty. I specifically said at the end that the Founding Fathers viewed rights in an extralegal sense.

And then you said extralegal has nothing to do with rights.

It’s a pedantic point that you yourself have hit me with numerous times. In fact, you are the one who originally brought up the subjectivity of words when I used a certain word.

I bring it up in the context of you arguing that my use of a word or my grammar is wrong. That's a bad argument. There is no real right or wrong word use or grammar. There is a wrong according to some standard but since that standard is itself made up it's a subjective wrong rather than an objective wrong and why should I be moved by an argument that says I'm wrong according to your imagination or the imagination of others?

You kept insisting the word meant “illegal” to you even after I told you it doesn’t mean that at all.

It still means illegal to me. It's what it means to you that I'm trying to figure out.

This was not so much about you not understanding what I meant, this is about you insisting the word meant something to you in a way that was not even one of the definitions in the dictionary.

Illegal fits the defintion of the dictionary just fine as far as I'm concerned. When I Google it the defintion that comes up gives an example "it was not an arrest but an extralegal abduction". I don't know about you but abducting someone just sounds illegal to me. Or at least it should be.

A thesaurus is not a dictionary and the word doesn’t even appear in the Webster’s thesaurus.

It did in thesaurus.com and it's synonyms were illicit, prohibited, criminal.....

I didn’t say it nullifies the argument, I said that, as a point of argument, your ability to go where you please is nullified by my equal ability to stop or remove you.

How so? And who says you do have that ability? My ability to walk is demonstrated by my walking. Homeowners get murdered in their own homes all the time and you yourself said this ability has never been tested. It kind of seems like that's an ability you just assume you have.

In other words, citing your mere ability to go where you please doesn’t mean shit in light of the fact I have the ability to stop you.

Except you don't. Yours is an imaginary argument or at least an aspirational one. You have the ability to try and stop me and so what? I was never arguing that you didn't. In fact my argument is that in doing so you are objectively using force against me which would violate libertarian moral absolutes on appropriate uses of force.

Is your argument simply about ability to move? If it is, so what?

Nope. It's about freedom of movement in contrast to claims of private property judged on the backdrop of libertarian moral absolutes.

Ultimately, yes, they are. Morality was devised as a code of behavior based on how we feel about certain acts.

Sure, but people imagine they're talking about something beyond mere feeling when they cite morality just like with good and evil which are also codes of behavior based on how people feel about certain acts. If it was just about feeling then people wouldn't say things like rape is wrong, they'd say they don't like rape. Rapists like rape. That's why they rape yet no moralist says rape is right from a rapists perspective. Right and Wrong like Good and Evil are attempts by people to elevate their feelings to some higher authority through the power of imagination. I don't talk in terms of morality any more than I talk in terms of good and evil because I don't believe they're real things. If you ask I'll share my feelings on things but that's all they are. My feelings. I talk about slavers from the perspective of personal disgust, nothing more. I don't feel the need to pretend it's anything more than that.

Not necessarily. Even atheists like ourselves adhere to a moral code and that code is rooted in our empathy for others, especially our loved ones.

Okay but even that sounds funny to me. Why call it a code when it's just your feelings?

Call it what you want but our emotional reactions to certain transgressions are the same as anyone whose morality is viewed as something outside themselves. It is essentially a moral code in all but name.

It's essentially just your feelings so why use words like good or evil or just or unjust or right or wrong when those things aren't real? Your feelings are real. Subjective but real. Why isn't that good enough?

Call it a strawman if you wish but “law is force” is an overly simplistic description of what law truly is. Repeated often enough then those who have not given much thought to the concept will actually believe, erroneously, that law is force, just as you did.

I call it a strawman because it is a strawman. I don't believe you've proven anything erroneous about my argument with your strawman. The law as written is a threat. The law applied is force. That occasionally its threats arent carried out doesn't mean the threat isn't stated or that if and when it's applied what will be applied is force. Those all remain objectively true.

You insisted again and again that law is force with no qualifying or clarifying explanations. It wasn’t until I pointed out to you that use of force is a choice and some laws are not always enforced that you finally qualified your remarks.

You didn't point anything out. You created a strawman while still not actually addressing what my argument is actually about. Just because I didn't qualify my remarks to your satisfaction doesn't mean you get to pretended they were about something else and have that be a rational argument. It remains the feeble strawman it always was.

In short, you actually believed that law, in and of itself, is force.

I don't even know what this means. Maybe don't base your arguments on what you make believe I believe. If you needed clarification on what the law is force means I've given it to you multiple times already but I'll give it to you here again.

The law as written is a threat and when those threats are acted on its through uses of force.

“not particularly helpful”? I explained it twice with two examples of other words with the same prefix.

And still I'm confused by what extralegal means to you.

I gave you an example context of the use of the word and you rabidly fixated on the word “rights”, not because you thought it had anything to do with the word meaning but because rights are subjective and you just wanted to throw that in my face.

I didn't force you to use rights as an example of an extralegal issue the Founders had to deal with.

I told you three times to look up the fucking word yourself which you refused to do and when you finally did, you give me a synonym from a thesaurus instead of the dictionary definition.

The dictionary example wasn't very helpful so I looked up synonyms why are you salty?

Instead of looking up the definition to learn what I meant, you went looking for some way to make me wrong, which you failed to do anyway.

Fucking idiot.

Why are you so mad? The defintion wasn't helpful, it's examples only made me think of things that are illegal or should be, and it's synonyms seemed to confirm that. I didn't write the thesaurus.com entry.

Also I'm not looking for a way to make you wrong. Get out of your feels guy. I'm the one explaining to you there is no wrong when it comes to word choice or grammar. I just don't know what you're trying to convey to me is all. There's no need to get emotional about it.

Yes I did. I gave you three words I felt revealed your bias.

You just listed three words, you didn't explain how they revealed any bias whatsoever or who's bias they revealed. What's unjust in my argument is a revelation of libertarian bias. They're the ones who think uses of force for purposes other than self defense is unjust, not me.

So I ask again: So what?

I don't know guy, this your thing, you tell me. My argument was to libertarians. You wanted to interject. You tell me what about my argument to libertarians you have an issue with.

And I don’t think that’s entirely true. Again, the fact that you refuse to answer a simple question about my removing you not being unjust speaks volumes.

I did answer. I told you unjust wasnt a real thing. You want to pretend I didn't answer just because I won't answer in the way you want.

Your use of “law is force” has nothing to do with your Jamaican patois.


You’ve been here since you were eight years old. I don’t think Jamaican patois is your problem.

I've been here since I was born. My way of speaking is a mixture of Jamaican patois and various forms of American English but heavy on the patois since I mostly grew up in large Jamaican communities and spent a lot of time traveling back and forth.

Are they promoting ideas that are factually untrue?

Am I?

If you mean I don’t know it’s an opinion, you would be incorrect.

So you know that there is no objectively right form of grammar, that bad grammar is an opinion, and that my grammar does convey what I mean and that it's you  who doesn't comprehend?

So why are you promoting ideas that are factually untrue?

Not everyone can express themselves in a way that others can understand or they simply don’t. Another poster (a black man) recently asked me this question:

“How she dead?”

What? I told him I didn’t understand the question so he cleaned up the grammar and used different words and said:

“How was she killed?”

I don’t think there’s that big a difference between our two grammars. As I said above, I think you really thought law is force.

I understand what how she dead means. Again, the problem here seems to be your inability to understand others. It would be no different than him saying it in Japanese and then having to repeat himself in your vernacular. He doesn't have a problem speaking English, apparently he can speak and understand more dialects of English than you can. Your bias is evident in your description of him cleaning up his grammar as if it were unclean.

Don’t be an idiot. We’re not talking about different languages.

What are we talking about? My argument is that the english dialect of the man in your example is like a heavy Scottish english dialect and ultimately not much different in effect than a completely foreign language to you. It's not objectively better or worse at expression than any other, it's a matter of whether you understand how to speak their language.

You tell me. You’re the one pointing out ability to move on your part but you say nothing about others having the same abilities.

I don't mention it because it isn't relevant to my counter argument to libertarian moral absolutes. All of us with legs and without spinal injury, and over the age of lets say 3 should be able to walk. My point in bringing up my ability to walk is to contrast it with libertarian moral absolutes. Does my walking around the earth violate libertarian moral absolutes and give anyone the right to use force against me? No. Not unless I'm walking on someone against their will. What about walking on private property? Well the question then becomes what is private property? If it's as you and I say, a subjective (made up) idea about how things on the earth belong to you, then let's plug that back in to the equation of libertarian moral absolutes. Is using force against someone for walking on what you imagine and make believe to be yours an objective use of force in self defense? No it is not. If all of this seems obvious to you it should be. That's what makes it so funny. Libertarian philosophy makes no sense. It's all about protecting something from unjustness that would be unjust by it's own standards. I just enjoy pointing it out to them.

Yes. One simply states that force exerted on an object will move that object. The other implies some sort of meaning to the use of that force by the words “freedom” and “access to resources”.

Yes. Freedom articulates the objective biological freedom of motion and thought humans possess and access to resources just about the availability of stuff around us. There is no bias in observing that we are beings with freedom of motion living on a planet with things around us that we have access to because of our biological capabilities. That's just an observational fact. If we didn't have the biological capability of motion that would limit our ability to access certain things. Where is the bias?

If nothing else, neither of these arguments has anything to do with libertarian moral absolutes and the question of their justification of defense of property.

Sure they do. They are the objective facts I use to combat arguments made of make believe. Nothing is anyones objective private property. Making believing it is and then fighting someone for it on the basis of imagination isn't an objective use of force in self defense.

So what does this have to do with resources?


Are we talking about F=MA or about people “keeping things for themselves”?

I understand you’re talking about physical force but why is people keeping things for themselves significant? What does this have to do with the context of simple force?


Nope. You brought up “law is force” and F=MA and that’s what I’m addressing. That property is ultimately subjective is immaterial to me and not what I’m arguing against.

I already addressed your strawman about the "law is force", what issue do you have with F=MA? Do you disagree with Newton?

Yes, you did refuse to answer. You accused me of asking a leading question.

And? I'm still accusing you of it because I did answer, I just didn't give you the answer you wanted which is why you haven't moved on.

That’s not what I asked. I asked: If justness is not a thing you recognize then are you saying that removing you from my property is not unjust?

And I'm answering again that justness isn't a real thing. If you don't understand the meaning of those words I really can't help you. When I read that question I read it as you saying "okay so I hear you that unicorns aren't real but what do you think of this unicorn!"



I mostly just think the question is funny and desperate.

Then removing you from my property is not unjust, correct?

You're the defintion of thirsty.

I’m not talking about your petty feelings about being manhandled, I’m talking about what it would mean to you to be forcibly removed from property beyond personal discomfiture.

It doesn't mean anything to me beyond my personal feelings.

Because you cite the formula for the law of motion to illustrate that it takes force to remove you but you don’t explain why this matters in light of the fact that everyone has the same abilities, including those removing you.

I cite it because it shows objectively that that isn't a defensive use of force. No one is using force against you when they walk on land you imagine is yours. It's no wonder you confuse yourself when you insist on dropping the context of my arguments.

Again, so what? Do you have a point beyond the obvious?

You tell me. You’re the one who brought up resources and access to them.


These “objective observations” have nothing to do with resources, taxes or the libertarian beliefs about self defense.


So then, my removing you from “things I want to keep for myself” doesn’t mean shit, does it?


So I can remove you without any judgment on your part other than being miffed at being manhandled, correct?


What answer am I “fishing” for?


And why is THAT significant?

What? That doesn’t answer the question. Why does it matter that it requires force to remove you?

Do you have an argument you want to make or are you just so salty you want to question me to death?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Still not helpful in understanding what you mean.

I’m not surprised, since you looked for a synonym instead of the definition. But at least you now know the example had nothing to do with rights though, yes?

You just said rights where an extralegal issue for the Founders and now you're saying extralegal has nothing to do with rights unless we're talking about rights but not when we're talking about other things like muffins. How am I not supposed to be confused about what you're trying to say?

Ask yourself why anyone would talk about muffins in the context of law and you may find your answer.

I’m not explaining it again. Figure it out for yourself.

Sure, but those aren't examples of something else that you see as extralegal.

They’re examples of other words using the same PREFIX of “Extra-“ you idiot.

Understand the use of the prefix and you just might understand “extralegal”.

Which still isn't going to help me understand what you're trying to say. Merriam says not sanctioned by law which to me sounds like it could be things that are illegal like beating a confession out of a suspect.

“not sanctioned by law” does not mean illegal, it simply means it has not been made formal or official in a legal sense, i.e., it has not been made into law. If it hasn’t been made into law then it can’t be illegal.

But not to any argument you're trying to make?

That it is relevant to the law of motion brought up by you IS my argument, dumbass.

The implication is that the mere law of motion doesn’t mean shit if it applies to everyone and everything.

Your having freedom to move has no special significance if I have it too. It also means that property being subjective is irrelevant to this fact.

I haven't refused, I'm just not answering how you want me to.

You’re not answering the question. It’s a simple yes or no question but all you keep doing is reiterating that justness is not a thing.

Tell you what, I’ll answer for you. If justness is not a thing then forcing you off my property is not unjust.

Because of libertarian moral absolutes.

We haven’t discussed libertarian moral absolutes and neither taxes or the law of motion have anything to do with that anyway.

So the question is: Is this significant to you outside the context of libertarian moral absolutes? If so, in what way? If not then why are you trying to convince me that removing you means something?

Because of libertarian moral absolutes.

Their moral absolutes have nothing to do with resources or what you were arguing with them. Your argument with them only pertained to the justness of force in defending property within the context of THEIR beliefs about self defense. That’s it.

I have thought through the implications of libertarian moral absolutes, it's people like dblack who haven't and so they run away from me whenever I try to point out its inconsistencies to them.

Irrelevant and I don’t care. You’ve argued with me about access to resources in the context of private property only to tell me you already have access through the taxes I pay, one of those being property tax on the land and resources you nevertheless want access to anyway.

You’re flip flopping, talking in circles and contradicting yourself. As I said, either you’re a greedy little fuck or you didn’t give proper thought to the issue before crying about walking on my property.

Yep. I know. That's part of my argument.

So you have a problem with people wanting a place of their own to raise a family?

That's called bias.

What’s called bias?

Because the one example you have of something that was extralegal (rights to the Founders) you turned around and said wasn't an example.

Wrong, I said rights were not the example but that how they viewed rights (in an extralegal context) was the example.

You latched onto the word “rights” because of your blind obsession with subjectivism. But “extralegal” can be used in any context - whether subjective or objective - to indicate the matter is regarded outside the context of law.

To the Founding Fathers, certain rights did not fall within the context of law because they believed they were endowed by a creator. Understand?

The other examples are not examples of what else you think is extralegal they're just other words with extra at the beginning.

They weren’t meant to be examples of “extralegal” dumbass, they were meant as examples of other words with the Extra- prefix.

The assumption was that you knew the definition of these words and that by deduction you’d figure out what “extralegal” means.

Apparently I assumed too much and gave you too much credit.

You still. I'm just genuinely confused and curious.

You’re confused because you’re not curious.

I don't really view it in any of those terms.

I view it as an act of forceful self interest.

You’re being there in the first place is out of your own self interest. Not only do you want my pecans, you want the taxes I pay on them.

It's significant in that force against others for purposes other than self defense is contrary to libertarian moral absolutes.

Which, once again, has nothing to do with resources or taxes. So why are you bringing up two points irrelevant to their moral absolutes - resources and taxes - in your discussion with me?

And then you said extralegal has nothing to do with rights.

“…except in a discussion about rights.”

You left that part out, dumbass.

You looked the word up yourself, didn’t you? Did you see anything there about rights? No? Then I was right, wasn’t I?

I bring it up in the context of you arguing that my use of a word or my grammar is wrong. That's a bad argument. There is no real right or wrong word use or grammar. There is a wrong according to some standard but since that standard is itself made up it's a subjective wrong rather than an objective wrong and why should I be moved by an argument that says I'm wrong according to your imagination or the imagination of others?

Irrelevant. You accuse me of doing the exact same thing you do.

It still means illegal to me. It's what it means to you that I'm trying to figure out.

What’s to figure out? The meaning has been explained to you twice, including the meaning of the prefix along with two examples of words using the same prefix, and a sample context to further illustrate its use.

Are you that fucking stupid or are you just being a troll?

Illegal fits the defintion of the dictionary just fine as far as I'm concerned. When I Google it the defintion that comes up gives an example "it was not an arrest but an extralegal abduction". I don't know about you but abducting someone just sounds illegal to me. Or at least it should be.

You stupid fuck. The example is given from the perspective of the arrestee or a disapproving onlooker. The person is not literally saying it was an abduction. He’s saying it was an arrest but “extralegal abduction” is a condemnation of the officers’ behavior and manner of conducting the arrest.

If it was an actual abduction then the illegality of it would be understood and not needed to be pointed out.

It did in thesaurus.com and it's synonyms were illicit, prohibited, criminal.....

I don’t care. It’s still not a definition.

How so?

It nullifies the point.

And who says you do have that ability?

F=MA.

My ability to walk is demonstrated by my walking. Homeowners get murdered in their own homes all the time and you yourself said this ability has never been tested.

When the fuck did I say this ability has never been tested?

It kind of seems like that's an ability you just assume you have.

You gotta be fucking kidding me.

The only criteria you gave for going where you please is ability to walk. That’s it. I have the same ability which means I have the ability to try to stop you.

Except you don't. Yours is an imaginary argument or at least an aspirational one.

Oh yeah? Who’s to say I don’t have the ability to try and stop you from even stepping foot on my property?

You’re assuming you would even be successful in accessing my property in the first place. Yours is just as imaginary and aspirational as mine.

You have the ability to try and stop me and so what? I was never arguing that you didn't. In fact my argument is that in doing so you are objectively using force against me which would violate libertarian moral absolutes on appropriate uses of force.

You and I never discussed libertarian moral absolutes and I never professed to share those absolutes or even anything resembling them. So my trying to stop you violates nothing. Correct?

Nope. It's about freedom of movement in contrast to claims of private property judged on the backdrop of libertarian moral absolutes.

Then why did you cite the law of motion? What does that have to do with claims of property?

Sure, but people imagine they're talking about something beyond mere feeling when they cite morality just like with good and evil which are also codes of behavior based on how people feel about certain acts. If it was just about feeling then people wouldn't say things like rape is wrong, they'd say they don't like rape. Rapists like rape. That's why they rape yet no moralist says rape is right from a rapists perspective. Right and Wrong like Good and Evil are attempts by people to elevate their feelings to some higher authority through the power of imagination. I don't talk in terms of morality any more than I talk in terms of good and evil because I don't believe they're real things.

Yet you refuse to say that my removing you from my property is not unjust.

If you ask I'll share my feelings on things but that's all they are. My feelings. I talk about slavers from the perspective of personal disgust, nothing more. I don't feel the need to pretend it's anything more than that.

Then why are you always bitching about me talking from feelings?

Okay but even that sounds funny to me. Why call it a code when it's just your feelings?

Because WORDS ARE SUBJECTIVE AND THEY CAN MEAN ANYTHING WE WANT THEM TO.

Sound familiar?

It's essentially just your feelings so why use words like good or evil or just or unjust or right or wrong when those things aren't real? Your feelings are real. Subjective but real. Why isn't that good enough?

Why does that matter if your emotional reaction to a transgression is the same as a Christian’s?

I call it a strawman because it is a strawman. I don't believe you've proven anything erroneous about my argument with your strawman.

Yes, I have. I have demonstrated through logic and facts that “Law is force” is not true. At the very least, you have not proven that it IS.

You have only shown that law is force when we choose to enforce it.

The law as written is a threat. The law applied is force. That occasionally its threats arent carried out doesn't mean the threat isn't stated or that if and when it's applied what will be applied is force. Those all remain objectively true.

It does mean that law is not force.

You didn't point anything out. You created a strawman while still not actually addressing what my argument is actually about.

Your argument was “law is force”.

Just because I didn't qualify my remarks to your satisfaction doesn't mean you get to pretended they were about something else and have that be a rational argument.

You didn’t qualify them at all until I showed you how law is not force.

It remains the feeble strawman it always was.

Like bringing up taxes in the context of private property?

I don't even know what this means.

I’m not at all surprised.

Maybe don't base your arguments on what you make believe I believe. If you needed clarification on what the law is force means I've given it to you multiple times already but I'll give it to you here again.

It wasn’t my imagination that you insisted law is force. You did not qualify your remarks in any way until I showed you how law is not force. Only then did you say you were talking about when law is enforced.

The law as written is a threat and when those threats are acted on its through uses of force.

It’s interesting that you use the word “threat”.

And still I'm confused by what extralegal means to you.

Again, not surprised.

I didn't force you to use rights as an example of an extralegal issue the Founders had to deal with.

I see. So I’m to blame for saying “rights” but you get a pass for being a fucking idiot?

The dictionary example wasn't very helpful so I looked up synonyms why are you salty?

It never occurred to you to consult another dictionary for the definition?

Why are you so mad? The defintion wasn't helpful, it's examples only made me think of things that are illegal or should be, and it's synonyms seemed to confirm that. I didn't write the thesaurus.com entry.

That’s because you’re an idiot.

Also I'm not looking for a way to make you wrong. Get out of your feels guy. I'm the one explaining to you there is no wrong when it comes to word choice or grammar. I just don't know what you're trying to convey to me is all. There's no need to get emotional about it.

Bullshit. I think you specifically went looking for a way to make me wrong that “extralegal” does not mean “illegal”.

What you’ve failed to realize is that a synonym is not a definition.

You just listed three words, you didn't explain how they revealed any bias whatsoever or who's bias they revealed. What's unjust in my argument is a revelation of libertarian bias. They're the ones who think uses of force for purposes other than self defense is unjust, not me.

Irrelevant. You said I never pointed out where the bias was in your arguments but I did. It’s my opinion of course but the fact remains I did point out where I think it’s revealed.

I don't know guy, this your thing, you tell me. My argument was to libertarians. You wanted to interject. You tell me what about my argument to libertarians you have an issue with.

That law is force, for one.

I did answer. I told you unjust wasnt a real thing. You want to pretend I didn't answer just because I won't answer in the way you want.

It was a simple yes or no question. What you gave me was a dodge, not an answer.

It is painfully simple: You don’t think justness is a real thing so removing you is not unjust. If it’s not unjust then it is not wrong, immoral, illegal, unfair, improper, rude, nasty, arrogant, or any other subjective adjective. It means nothing at all, correct?

I've been here since I was born. My way of speaking is a mixture of Jamaican patois and various forms of American English but heavy on the patois since I mostly grew up in large Jamaican communities and spent a lot of time traveling back and forth.

Well there you go.

Am I?

Yes.

So you know that there is no objectively right form of grammar, that bad grammar is an opinion, and that my grammar does convey what I mean and that it's you  who doesn't comprehend?

Nope. You’re not gonna pull that bullshit.

Don’t pretend with me that you don’t adhere to at least rudimentary grammar rules and word definitions after consulting a dictionary and thesaurus to try to prove me wrong.

Fucking hypocrite.

So why are you promoting ideas that are factually untrue?

Like?

I understand what how she dead means.

That doesn’t mean he didn’t sound like an idiot.

Again, the problem here seems to be your inability to understand others. It would be no different than him saying it in Japanese and then having to repeat himself in your vernacular.

Yes it would be different and you know it. This is not a different language you idiot. It’s the same language and words, just arranged in a way that grammatically makes no sense.

He doesn't have a problem speaking English, apparently he can speak and understand more dialects of English than you can.

I don’t consider ghetto a dialect.

Your bias is evident in your description of him cleaning up his grammar as if it were unclean.

Yes. So what?

What are we talking about? My argument is that the english dialect of the man in your example is like a heavy Scottish english dialect and ultimately not much different in effect than a completely foreign language to you. It's not objectively better or worse at expression than any other, it's a matter of whether you understand how to speak their language.

Oh for fuck’s sake. I simply don’t care. This discussion has taken enough twists and turns without this added rigamarole.

I don't mention it because it isn't relevant to my counter argument to libertarian moral absolutes. All of us with legs and without spinal injury, and over the age of lets say 3 should be able to walk. My point in bringing up my ability to walk is to contrast it with libertarian moral absolutes.

Does it contrast with my moral absolutes? For that matter, does it contrast with anything for you outside their moral absolutes? If not then I’m wondering why you’re trying so hard to convince me of something.

I’m wondering why you bring up resources when arguing with me but not with them. I’m wondering why you bring up taxes with me but not with them. I’m wondering why you bring up F=MA with me but not them.

If you have brought these things up with them then what do these things have to do with their moral absolutes about self defense?

Does my walking around the earth violate libertarian moral absolutes and give anyone the right to use force against me? No.

And outside libertarian moral absolutes? Does anyone have a right to use force against you then?

Not unless I'm walking on someone against their will. What about walking on private property? Well the question then becomes what is private property? If it's as you and I say, a subjective (made up) idea about how things on the earth belong to you, then let's plug that back in to the equation of libertarian moral absolutes. Is using force against someone for walking on what you imagine and make believe to be yours an objective use of force in self defense? No it is not. If all of this seems obvious to you it should be. That's what makes it so funny. Libertarian philosophy makes no sense. It's all about protecting something from unjustness that would be unjust by it's own standards. I just enjoy pointing it out to them.

It sounds to me like this whole “property is subjective so force is necessary to remove someone from access to resources” is a stand alone argument for you. I’m guessing this is an argument you’ve had before with people other than libertarians. Tell me I’m wrong.

Yes. Freedom articulates the objective biological freedom of motion and thought humans possess and access to resources just about the availability of stuff around us. There is no bias in observing that we are beings with freedom of motion living on a planet with things around us that we have access to because of our biological capabilities. That's just an observational fact. If we didn't have the biological capability of motion that would limit our ability to access certain things. Where is the bias?

The bias is in your refusal to answer a simple yes or no question: “Yes, it is not unjust for you to remove me from property since justness is not a thing.”

Sure they do. They are the objective facts I use to combat arguments made of make believe. Nothing is anyones objective private property. Making believing it is and then fighting someone for it on the basis of imagination isn't an objective use of force in self defense.

No, they do not. The question is of the justification of force to defend property if force is only justified in self defense. This has absolutely nothing to do with the law of motion or resources.

I already addressed your strawman about the "law is force",

Nope. Your argument was that law is force and you repeated this argument until you finally qualified it with “when law is enforced” much later.

what issue do you have with F=MA? Do you disagree with Newton?

Don’t be stupid. I just think it was chickenshit and hypocritical of you to bring up law of force and motion in a discussion about the abstract issue of the subjectivity of property ownership, freedom to walk on private property and force to remove someone from property.

This discussion has nothing to do with any scientific formulas.

And? I'm still accusing you of it because I did answer, I just didn't give you the answer you wanted which is why you haven't moved on.

You did not answer, you merely responded.

But that’s okay because I am proceeding on the assumption that you don’t think removing you is unjust.

And I'm answering again that justness isn't a real thing. If you don't understand the meaning of those words I really can't help you. When I read that question I read it as you saying "okay so I hear you that unicorns aren't real but what do you think of this unicorn!"



I mostly just think the question is funny and desperate.

Says the guy who refuses to answer a yes or no question.

You're the defintion of thirsty.

You’re the definition of hypocrite.

It doesn't mean anything to me beyond my personal feelings.

Good. So we have a mutual understanding that if you decide to trespass on my property, you won’t squeal about property being subjective or whining about access to my pecans if I remove you, yes?

I cite it because it shows objectively that that isn't a defensive use of force.

What does defensive use of force have to do with the scientific formula?

No one is using force against you when they walk on land you imagine is yours. It's no wonder you confuse yourself when you insist on dropping the context of my arguments.

The problem here is not me droppiing context, the problem is you creating irrelevant ones.

The law of motion has nothing to do with self defense or the justification of self defense. This is a purely academic discussion about the justification of the use of force to remove someone, not how much force is necessary to remove someone.

Do you have an argument you want to make or are you just so salty you want to question me to death?

You mean to tell me you don’t know questions are the foundation of arguments?

 

[ColonelAngus]

The commie got FLUSHED.

 

[Curried Goats]

I’m not surprised, since you looked for a synonym instead of the definition. But at least you now know the example had nothing to do with rights though, yes?

Except it did. I can quote it back for you if you like....

Ask yourself why anyone would talk about muffins in the context of law and you may find your answer.

I have no idea. That's part of what's so confusing. You said it's not about rights then it is about rights so long as we're discussing rights but not other things. How the fuck am I supposed to make sense of that?

I’m not explaining it again. Figure it out for yourself.


They’re examples of other words using the same PREFIX of “Extra-“ you idiot.

Understand the use of the prefix and you just might understand “extralegal”.


“not sanctioned by law” does not mean illegal, it simply means it has not been made formal or official in a legal sense, i.e., it has not been made into law. If it hasn’t been made into law then it can’t be illegal.

Im still at a loss at what you're trying to describe here. How about another example?

That it is relevant to the law of motion brought up by you IS my argument, dumbass.

But not to my argument. My argument isn't just about the law of motion or force but how they apply to libertarian moral absolutes.

The implication is that the mere law of motion doesn’t mean shit if it applies to everyone and everything.

It means something to libertarian moral absolutes.

Your having freedom to move has no special significance if I have it too. It also means that property being subjective is irrelevant to this fact.

It means something to libertarian moral absolutes.

You’re not answering the question. It’s a simple yes or no question but all you keep doing is reiterating that justness is not a thing.

I am answering, I just don't particularly care about how you wished I was answering. Are you going to address my answer ever or just keep crying like a little bitch?

Tell you what, I’ll answer for you. If justness is not a thing then forcing you off my property is not unjust.

It is force though right....

I love that I can walk you into agreeing with me. So to sum up, we both acknowledge justness isn't a thing but force to maintain property rights is. All this work and you're still confirming my argument.

We haven’t discussed libertarian moral absolutes and neither taxes or the law of motion have anything to do with that anyway.

I have been discussing them in the context of libertarian moral absolutes. That is the conversation you interjected yourself into, yes?

So the question is: Is this significant to you outside the context of libertarian moral absolutes? If so, in what way? If not then why are you trying to convince me that removing you means something?

What do you mean by significant? I certainly don't like force being used against me.

Their moral absolutes have nothing to do with resources or what you were arguing with them. Your argument with them only pertained to the justness of force in defending property within the context of THEIR beliefs about self defense. That’s it.

What's property if not a collection of resources you wish to keep for yourself?

Irrelevant and I don’t care. You’ve argued with me about access to resources in the context of private property only to tell me you already have access through the taxes I pay, one of those being property tax on the land and resources you nevertheless want access to anyway.

Yep. Separate arguments. One is about the incongruity between libertarian moral absolutes and private property, the other is about how the law functions to allow me access to your resources.

You’re flip flopping, talking in circles and contradicting yourself. As I said, either you’re a greedy little fuck or you didn’t give proper thought to the issue before crying about walking on my property.

It's not a flip flop just because you're a moron who can't parse two separate arguments from one another.

So you have a problem with people wanting a place of their own to raise a family?

Nope. I have amusement for nonsensical arguments.

What’s called bias?


Wrong, I said rights were not the example but that how they viewed rights (in an extralegal context) was the example.

So we're back to made up philosophical beliefs like I said in the beginning. That is what rights are after all.

You latched onto the word “rights” because of your blind obsession with subjectivism. But “extralegal” can be used in any context - whether subjective or objective - to indicate the matter is regarded outside the context of law.

Give me an example then of something that is objective and extralegal.

To the Founding Fathers, certain rights did not fall within the context of law because they believed they were endowed by a creator. Understand?

I understand that to be a made up philosophical musing.

They weren’t meant to be examples of “extralegal” dumbass, they were meant as examples of other words with the Extra- prefix.

I asked for other examples of things that were extralegal not for other words with extra in them....

The assumption was that you knew the definition of these words and that by deduction you’d figure out what “extralegal” means.

The definition didn't really help and its synonyms only reinforced the notion is illegality.

Apparently I assumed too much and gave you too much credit.

There there.

You’re confused because you’re not curious.

Or it's just not very clear.

You’re being there in the first place is out of your own self interest. Not only do you want my pecans, you want the taxes I pay on them.

Everyone is only ever doing anything out of self interest.

Which, once again, has nothing to do with resources or taxes. So why are you bringing up two points irrelevant to their moral absolutes - resources and taxes - in your discussion with me?

Because you made a poorly thought out argument about me not having access to your resources. Notice how you can't refute this point and so you've just spent the entire time crying like a bitch about it?

“…except in a discussion about rights.”

You left that part out, dumbass.

It has nothing to do with rights unless we're talking about rights doesn't clear anything up for me.

You looked the word up yourself, didn’t you? Did you see anything there about rights? No? Then I was right, wasn’t I?

I looked up the defintion and it's synonyms and you cried because the synonyms reinforced it's relation to illegality.

Irrelevant. You accuse me of doing the exact same thing you do.

I don't, you're just too stupid and ignorant to understand the differences.

What’s to figure out? The meaning has been explained to you twice, including the meaning of the prefix along with two examples of words using the same prefix, and a sample context to further illustrate its use.

Still wasnt helpful.

Are you that fucking stupid or are you just being a troll?

You think Im pretending not to understand to mess with you?

You stupid fuck. The example is given from the perspective of the arrestee or a disapproving onlooker. The person is not literally saying it was an abduction. He’s saying it was an arrest but “extralegal abduction” is a condemnation of the officers’ behavior and manner of conducting the arrest.

The example literally says abduction. Do you not know what literally means you stupid fuck?

If it was an actual abduction then the illegality of it would be understood and not needed to be pointed out.

It's still an actual abduction you Simp for the State. Even when the police do it.

I don’t care. It’s still not a definition.

You obviously care you're so salty about it. If you didn't actually care you could emotionally accept the fact that it's synonymous with illegality.

It nullifies the point.

In what way? Try explaining that instead of just claiming it.

F=MA.

When the fuck did I say this ability has never been tested?

When you said you never had to use force to maintain your property.

You gotta be fucking kidding me.

The only criteria you gave for going where you please is ability to walk. That’s it. I have the same ability which means I have the ability to try to stop you.

Sure. Now feed all those abilities into the calculations done by libertarian moral absolutes and see if it's just according to libertarian philosophy to stop me whilst walking just because you have the ability to do so.....

Oh yeah? Who’s to say I don’t have the ability to try and stop you from even stepping foot on my property?

You can say it all you like but saying you can do something and demonstrating the ability to do so are two different things.

You’re assuming you would even be successful in accessing my property in the first place. Yours is just as imaginary and aspirational as mine.

Is your property on earth? Why exactly would I have trouble accessing it?

You and I never discussed libertarian moral absolutes and I never professed to share those absolutes or even anything resembling them. So my trying to stop you violates nothing. Correct?

I have been discussing libertarian moral absolutes, you only get to speak for yourself you clown.

As for you trying to stop me it violates my freedom of choice and mobility.

Then why did you cite the law of motion? What does that have to do with claims of property?

It has to do with the incongruity with libertarian moral absolutes.

Yet you refuse to say that my removing you from my property is not unjust.

I have said unjust isn't a real thing. It's an answer that incorporates all supposed acts of justice or injustice, not just the one you're emotionally invested in.

Then why are you always bitching about me talking from feelings?

Because WORDS ARE SUBJECTIVE AND THEY CAN MEAN ANYTHING WE WANT THEM TO.

Sound familiar?

Sure. What do you mean?

Why does that matter if your emotional reaction to a transgression is the same as a Christian’s?

You don't understand why things matter to people subjectively? Is that something you really need explained to you?

Yes, I have. I have demonstrated through logic and facts that “Law is force” is not true. At the very least, you have not proven that it IS.

Except you haven't. A strawman isn't a rational argument. You can't change the meaning of The Law Is Force to your meaning and then say you've defeated my argument. That's not how rationality works. You have to attack my argument in my context, not the one you'd rather address it in.

You have only shown that law is force when we choose to enforce it.

Which is my meaning, Moron.

It does mean that law is not force.

You just confirmed my meaning is correct.

Your argument was “law is force”.

Now what does that mean?

You didn’t qualify them at all until I showed you how law is not force.

Again, not clarifying something to your satisfaction doesn't mean you get to make believe whatever meaning you want. In fact you didn't ask for any clarification as I have when I'm unsure about things you mean. If you had then I would of clarified it for you. I can't really address something if I don't know it needs addressing.

Like bringing up taxes in the context of private property?


I’m not at all surprised.


It wasn’t my imagination that you insisted law is force. You did not qualify your remarks in any way until I showed you how law is not force. Only then did you say you were talking about when law is enforced.

Because that's what I was always talking about.

It’s interesting that you use the word “threat”.

Is it? I think it's just accurate. The law as stated is a threat. The law applied is force.

Again, not surprised.

I see. So I’m to blame for saying “rights” but you get a pass for being a fucking idiot?

It never occurred to you to consult another dictionary for the definition?

What makes you think I didnt?

That’s because you’re an idiot.

Bullshit. I think you specifically went looking for a way to make me wrong that “extralegal” does not mean “illegal”.

We're debating, proving you wrong is the point you Dipshit. Don't be salty because I did. Make better arguments.

What you’ve failed to realize is that a synonym is not a definition.

They are examples of synonyms though and what's the definition of a synonym?

Irrelevant. You said I never pointed out where the bias was in your arguments but I did. It’s my opinion of course but the fact remains I did point out where I think it’s revealed.

So to clarify you're not pointing to any objective bias just what you feel is bias? OK.

I'm only concerned with things you can objectively prove, not the things you feel deep down inside.

That law is force, for one.

You confirmed that the law is force when it's applied just as I meant.

It was a simple yes or no question. What you gave me was a dodge, not an answer.

I can answer questions anyway I like. I'm not limited to your poor imagination.

It is painfully simple: You don’t think justness is a real thing so removing you is not unjust. If it’s not unjust then it is not wrong, immoral, illegal, unfair, improper, rude, nasty, arrogant, or any other subjective adjective. It means nothing at all, correct?

Well it could mean those things subjectively but justness and injustice mean nothing objectively.

Well there you go.

Yes.

Nope. You’re not gonna pull that bullshit.

Don’t pretend with me that you don’t adhere to at least rudimentary grammar rules and word definitions after consulting a dictionary and thesaurus to try to prove me wrong.

I recognize different dialects and languages have different rules, I'm not under some mistaken impression like you that there is some objective right and wrong form of grammar.

Fucking hypocrite.

No. You're just a moron.

Like?


That doesn’t mean he didn’t sound like an idiot.

He doesnt sound like an idiot to me. You seem like more of an idiot with your misconception of objectively good or bad grammar. All he did was express himself in way that was confusing to you. He didn't express an idea that is contrary to reality.

Yes it would be different and you know it. This is not a different language you idiot. It’s the same language and words, just arranged in a way that grammatically makes no sense.

It's a different dialect of English, that's all and as I said it made sense to me and everyone else who speaks the dialect. In fact what that man demonstrated is that he understands more dialects than you do.

I don’t consider ghetto a dialect.

I don't care about your feelings. Try making a rational argument instead.

Yes. So what?


Oh for fuck’s sake. I simply don’t care. This discussion has taken enough twists and turns without this added rigamarole.

I'm not forcing you to make this so tedious.

Does it contrast with my moral absolutes? For that matter, does it contrast with anything for you outside their moral absolutes? If not then I’m wondering why you’re trying so hard to convince me of something.

I'm not trying convince you of anything. I'm here smacking around your arguments for my own amusement. I don't care what you get out of it.

I’m wondering why you bring up resources when arguing with me but not with them. I’m wondering why you bring up taxes with me but not with them. I’m wondering why you bring up F=MA with me but not them.

I have in other discussions. The discussion in this thread didn't last that long because dblack didn't want continue.

If you have brought these things up with them then what do these things have to do with their moral absolutes about self defense?

It has to do with the fact that libertarian philosophy states using force against others for anything other than self defense is immoral so I'm showing where the uses of force are coming from in these scenarios, objectively. If someone is just walking along the earth and you use force against them to defend your make believe notions then objectively that's you using force against them, not using force in act of self defense.

And outside libertarian moral absolutes? Does anyone have a right to use force against you then?

If rights don't objectively exist you should be able to answer that question for yourself. How can anyone objectively have a right to use force against me on any occasion if rights aren't real? You can't objectively have something that doesn't objectively exist.

It sounds to me like this whole “property is subjective so force is necessary to remove someone from access to resources” is a stand alone argument for you. I’m guessing this is an argument you’ve had before with people other than libertarians. Tell me I’m wrong.

Those things are objectively true, they are true inside and outside of the context of libertarian moral absolutes so I'm sure I've discussed them as a matter fact beyond the context of how they make private property incompatible with libertarian moral absolutes.

The bias is in your refusal to answer a simple yes or no question: “Yes, it is not unjust for you to remove me from property since justness is not a thing.”

I have answered, just not in the way you desired. There there.

No, they do not. The question is of the justification of force to defend property if force is only justified in self defense. This has absolutely nothing to do with the law of motion or resources.

Sure they do. They show objectively the direction and origin of forces and what these forces are being used for.

Nope. Your argument was that law is force and you repeated this argument until you finally qualified it with “when law is enforced” much later.

I wasnt aware I needed to until then.

Don’t be stupid. I just think it was chickenshit and hypocritical of you to bring up law of force and motion in a discussion about the abstract issue of the subjectivity of property ownership, freedom to walk on private property and force to remove someone from property.

So yours is an argument about your feelings?

This discussion has nothing to do with any scientific formulas.

Mine did, apparently yours was about your feelings this whole time.

You did not answer, you merely responded.

But that’s okay because I am proceeding on the assumption that you don’t think removing you is unjust.

You don't have to assume when I've argued effectively that justness doesn't even really exist.

Says the guy who refuses to answer a yes or no question.

You’re the definition of hypocrite.

Im just smarter than you. Make your own arguments Soy boy instead of trying to ride my back to the conclusions you want.

Good. So we have a mutual understanding that if you decide to trespass on my property, you won’t squeal about property being subjective or whining about access to my pecans if I remove you, yes?

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond to your fantasies other than to laugh.

What does defensive use of force have to do with the scientific formula?

It has to do with determining the origins and vectors of force.

The problem here is not me droppiing context, the problem is you creating irrelevant ones.

The irrelevant contexts to my objective arguments is how you feel about them.

The law of motion has nothing to do with self defense or the justification of self defense. This is a purely academic discussion about the justification of the use of force to remove someone, not how much force is necessary to remove someone.

Sure it does. How do we determine who's using self defense if we can't discern the origins and vectors of force?

You mean to tell me you don’t know questions are the foundation of arguments?

Reason is the foundation of my arguments, you construct yours with whatever you like.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Except it did. I can quote it back for you if you like....

Okay, quote it back then. Show me where I said the word "extralegal", in and of itself, has anything to do with rights outside of the context of the example I gave.

I have no idea. That's part of what's so confusing. You said it's not about rights then it is about rights so long as we're discussing rights but not other things. How the fuck am I supposed to make sense of that?

It makes perfect sense to me. Your confusion is your problem.

Im still at a loss at what you're trying to describe here. How about another example?

I think you know that ain't happening.

But not to my argument. My argument isn't just about the law of motion or force but how they apply to libertarian moral absolutes.

Bullshit. Your argument with them is about the justification of force regarding property being inconsistent with their beliefs about self defense. That's it. Your argument with me has nothing to do with justification of anything. It has to do with with force being necessary to remove you from property but (so you say) not necessary for you to come on my property.

You cite the law of force and motion to support this argument but the law only applies to the tangible and universal properties of force and motion. Therefore it is irrelevant since the law also applies to any force I may use.

F=MA does not help your argument at all.

It means something to libertarian moral absolutes.

No it doesn't. F=MA has nothing to do with libertarian moral absolutes because that is a subjective concept.

It means something to libertarian moral absolutes.

It means something to anything and everything that has or can apply force and that can be moved. So what?

I am answering, I just don't particularly care about how you wished I was answering. Are you going to address my answer ever or just keep crying like a little bitch?

I did, dumbass. Or rather, I answered for you: since justness is not a thing, my removing you is neither just nor unjust.

It is force though right....

Yes. But so is moving onto my property. So what?

I love that I can walk you into agreeing with me. So to sum up, we both acknowledge justness isn't a thing but force to maintain property rights is. All this work and you're still confirming my argument.

Irrelevant. The fact remains: removing you from my property is not unjust.

I have been discussing them in the context of libertarian moral absolutes.

No you haven't.

That is the conversation you interjected yourself into, yes?

No, it's not.

When I first stepped in it was to address a comment you made to AZrailwhale and it had nothing to do with libertarian moral absolutes. Also, the few exchanges you had with dblack before I stepped in had nothing to do with libertarian moral absolutes either. For that matter, neither did anything else you said to each other after that.

I went back through and reviewed all your posts with dblack in this thread and do you know what I discovered? Not once did the subject of justification of self defense regarding property come up. The closest you ever came to that was when you asked him these questions:

"And if everyone does have equally resourceful land, where are the capitalists? And is this agreement with everyone on earth? What about the people who aren't part of this agreement? It's OK to use force against them?"
Which he never answered.

Also, I came across this gem by you to me:

"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)."
You've been telling me that your arguments to him were about the unjustness of force to protect or defend property in the context of their belief system. But that was after you told me the above earlier that private ownership of property is unjust in the context of their belief system.

What do you mean by significant? I certainly don't like force being used against me.

I'm not playing that stupid game with you. So I will just assume it has no significance for you outside your personal displeasure at being removed.

What's property if not a collection of resources you wish to keep for yourself?

Irrelevant. It still has nothing to do with their beliefs about self defense.

Yep. Separate arguments. One is about the incongruity between libertarian moral absolutes and private property, the other is about how the law functions to allow me access to your resources.

Like I said, irrelevant argument.

It's not a flip flop just because you're a moron who can't parse two separate arguments from one another.

If I couldn't parse two separate arguments then I wouldn't be telling you they're two separate arguments you fucking idiot. That they're separate arguments is precisely my point; one has nothing to do with the other.

Let me remind you of what you said regarding resources:

"Private property is about keeping resources for yourself."

And

"I said you didn't pay me for it (my property), meaning you didn't pay me so you could have exclusive rights to this natural resource that we would all otherwise have access to."
All this time we've been discussing natural resources on property which you said you don't have access to if I impede your ability to go where you please; "...we would all otherwise have access to." and "...keeping resources for yourself." So either you mean I'm keeping the taxes I pay for myself (which of course is self contradictory) or you attempted a deflection.

Nope. I have amusement for nonsensical arguments.

You said it was part of your argument and now you're saying it's nonsensical.

So we're back to made up philosophical beliefs like I said in the beginning. That is what rights are after all.

I'm not back to philosophical beliefs or even rights, you are. Law is the distinction here, not rights or beliefs. Rights can be viewed as a matter of law or they can be viewed outside the concept of law as the Founding Fathers did. In other words, from an extralegal perspective.

Give me an example then of something that is objective and extralegal.

That ain't happening either. I've explained it enough.

I understand that to be a made up philosophical musing.

What, extralegal?

I asked for other examples of things that were extralegal not for other words with extra in them....

Liar. You hadn't asked for examples before I gave you examples. All you said was: "I don't know what the hell secular or extra legal mean in this context."
And
"I still don't know what you mean by extra legal. There's legal and illegal. What's extra legal? Is that like Legal +? Or Legal Max? It sounds like a streaming service."
And
"I still don't know what extra legal is supposed to mean."
Then you said: "Give me an example of something extra legal."
To which I responded with the example of how the Founding Fathers viewed certain rights.

You never asked asked for other examples; you just kept insisting it meant "illegal" to you.

The definition didn't really help and its synonyms only reinforced the notion is illegality.

You mean you don't know what "extraterrestrial" and "extracurricular" mean? Do you think they mean more terrestrial or more curricular? Dumbass.

There there.

You don't seriously think I'm vexed over your ignorance, do you?

Or it's just not very clear.

It's not clear to you because you're not curious. You're not even trying to understand.

Everyone is only ever doing anything out of self interest.

So then what's your point?

Because you made a poorly thought out argument about me not having access to your resources.

It wasn't an argument you idiot, it was an observation. Or an opinion, if you prefer, since you're obsessed with subjectivism. Besides, I just showed you above that you specified "natural resources" that I am "keeping for myself" that "people would otherwise have access to".
You say I'm keeping natural resources (on my property) for myself and not allowing you and others access to them and then when I say you're bothered by this, you divert to taxes.

You're a fucking hypocrite and a moron.

Notice how you can't refute this point and so you've just spent the entire time crying like a bitch about it?

Refute what point?

It has nothing to do with rights unless we're talking about rights doesn't clear anything up for me.

I don't care. Like I said before, I'm only willing to entertain your ignorance for so long. After that, you're on your own.

I looked up the defintion and it's synonyms and you cried because the synonyms reinforced it's relation to illegality.

No, they don't. And you looked up the synonyms because you're too fucking stupid to understand the definition.

I don't, you're just too stupid and ignorant to understand the differences.

You don't what, use subjective words? That's a goddamn lie.

Still wasnt helpful.

Oh well.

You think Im pretending not to understand to mess with you?

No, I think you don't understand because you have no desire to.

The example literally says abduction. Do you not know what literally means you stupid fuck?

"Words are subjective and can mean anything we want them to."

Do you remember saying that you stupid fuck? It's METAPHOR you ignorant ass.

It's still an actual abduction you Simp for the State. Even when the police do it.

No, it's not.

Here's yet another example for you from recent headlines (USA Today, Nov 1): "Harris voters often cited fears that Trump will ignore the Constitution and use extralegal means to target his enemies..."
This does not mean he will use illegal means, it means he will get back at his enemies in some way other than through the law.

I went to the dictionary you used and found this definition and an example:

1 - being beyond the province or authority of law:

example: There were only extralegal recourses for their grievances.
Are you seriously telling me you didn't understand what "beyond the province or authority of law" meant?

You obviously care you're so salty about it. If you didn't actually care you could emotionally accept the fact that it's synonymous with illegality.

You don't find it odd that the definition did not say "illegal"?

In what way? Try explaining that instead of just claiming it.

Already explained.

When you said you never had to use force to maintain your property.

That's what I said. I did NOT say it was never tested.

Sure. Now feed all those abilities into the calculations done by libertarian moral absolutes and see if it's just according to libertarian philosophy to stop me whilst walking just because you have the ability to do so.....

If you're willing to admit here that it's unjust in the context of libertarian philosophy then why are you so reluctant to say it is not unjust outside that philosophy?

When I asked you if you're saying it is not unjust, you accuse me of asking a leading question and refuse to answer. Why?

You can say it all you like but saying you can do something and demonstrating the ability to do so are two different things.

Exactly. Which means that saying you can come on my property and demonstrating that ability are two different things too, doesn't it?

Is your property on earth? Why exactly would I have trouble accessing it?

If I chose to take measures to prevent you from accessing it.

I have been discussing libertarian moral absolutes, you only get to speak for yourself you clown.

No you haven't. When I asked my question, you didn't say anything about libertarian moral absolutes at that time. You accused me of asking a leading question and refused to answer except to say that justness is not a thing. Which, interestingly enough, you never said to the libertarian.

You're willing enough to say it is unjust within their philosophy but unwilling to say it is not unjust to me. Again, why?

As for you trying to stop me it violates my freedom of choice and mobility.

And access to my resources, let's not forget that. But wait, you already have access to my resources through my taxes, right? So why are we discussing this at all?

It has to do with the incongruity with libertarian moral absolutes.

No it doesn't.

I have said unjust isn't a real thing. It's an answer that incorporates all supposed acts of justice or injustice, not just the one you're emotionally invested in.

You did not say this to the libertarian. You told him his act of force would be unjust.

Sure. What do you mean?

What did you mean when you said it?

You don't understand why things matter to people subjectively? Is that something you really need explained to you?

Do you really need it explained to you that an emotional reaction is an objective, physical response?

Except you haven't.

You haven't proven that law is force.

A strawman isn't a rational argument. You can't change the meaning of The Law Is Force to your meaning and then say you've defeated my argument. That's not how rationality works. You have to attack my argument in my context, not the one you'd rather address it in.

"You can't change the meaning of Extralegal to your meaning and then say you've defeated my argument. That's not how rationality works. You have to attack my argument in my context, not the one you'd rather address it in."

Which is my meaning, Moron.

Then law is not force, moron.

You just confirmed my meaning is correct.

Your meaning was F=MA?

Now what does that mean?

You're the one who said it, not me.

Again, not clarifying something to your satisfaction doesn't mean you get to make believe whatever meaning you want. In fact you didn't ask for any clarification as I have when I'm unsure about things you mean. If you had then I would of clarified it for you. I can't really address something if I don't know it needs addressing.

I didn't ask for clarification because I didn't need it. You said "Law is force." That's a pretty clear and succinct assertion so I took it as it was. Hence, my arguments against the idea.

Because that's what I was always talking about.

Then why did you refuse to say removing you was not unjust?

Is it? I think it's just accurate. The law as stated is a threat. The law applied is force.

Okay.

What makes you think I didnt?

Because you went straight to their thesaurus and gave me a synonym.

We're debating, proving you wrong is the point you Dipshit.

How can you debate the meaning of "extralegal" when you don't even understand what it means?

Don't be salty because I did. Make better arguments.

Are you now admitting that understanding the definition of "extralegal" or what I meant by it was never your goal but rather, proving me wrong about the word not meaning illegal was the goal?

They are examples of synonyms though and what's the definition of a synonym?

It's still not a definition. The definition says nothing about illegal, even in the dictionary you consulted.

So to clarify you're not pointing to any objective bias just what you feel is bias? OK.

Irrelevant. You said I didn't but I did.

I'm only concerned with things you can objectively prove, not the things you feel deep down inside.

Like "Law is force"?

You confirmed that the law is force when it's applied just as I meant.

No it isn't. You meant that law is force because you argued with me when I said it wasn't.

I can answer questions anyway I like. I'm not limited to your poor imagination.

You mean like you imagined I was asking a leading question? Like you imagined I was "fishing" for a particular answer?

Before you ever said anything about justness not being a thing, your very first response to my question was to accuse me of asking a leading question and that I was fishing for a particular answer. This is precisely why you didn't answer "Yes" or "No" and why you later deflected to justness not being a thing.

I think you feel that removing you is unjust in some way but you can't say so because you're constrained by your own rules about subjectivism and you know damn well I'll pounce on that shit like a Jamaican on a joint.

Well it could mean those things subjectively but justness and injustice mean nothing objectively.

Yeah, you already said that. I'm saying that because justness is subjective then removing you is not unjust and so it doesn't mean anything at all.

I recognize different dialects and languages have different rules, I'm not under some mistaken impression like you that there is some objective right and wrong form of grammar.

Yet you consulted a dictionary and thesaurus and based on that, you said in this very post that you proved me wrong because this is debate. So apparently you are under some mistaken impression that there is some objective right and wrong form of grammar. Otherwise, why would you think you proved me wrong?

You're a hypocrite.

No. You're just a moron.

You're the one who contradicted himself by saying words are subjective while saying I was objectively wrong about a word's meaning.

He doesnt sound like an idiot to me.

An idiot doesn't sound like an idiot to an idiot.

You seem like more of an idiot with your misconception of objectively good or bad grammar.

Says the guy who claimed he proved me wrong on a subjective word meaning.

All he did was express himself in way that was confusing to you. He didn't express an idea that is contrary to reality.

Doesn't matter. I can't take someone who talks like that seriously.

It's a different dialect of English, that's all and as I said it made sense to me and everyone else who speaks the dialect. In fact what that man demonstrated is that he understands more dialects than you do.

I doubt that very much.

I don't care about your feelings. Try making a rational argument instead.

You mean like you "proving" that a subjective word is objectively defined a certain way?

I'm not forcing you to make this so tedious.

YOU are the one making it tedious. That was the fucking point. Dumbass.

I'm not trying convince you of anything. I'm here smacking around your arguments for my own amusement. I don't care what you get out of it.

You said proving someone wrong is the point of debate. Are you trying to prove something or not?

I have in other discussions. The discussion in this thread didn't last that long because dblack didn't want continue.

Other discussions are irrelevant.

It has to do with the fact that libertarian philosophy states using force against others for anything other than self defense is immoral so I'm showing where the uses of force are coming from in these scenarios, objectively. If someone is just walking along the earth and you use force against them to defend your make believe notions then objectively that's you using force against them, not using force in act of self defense.

That doesn't answer the question. What do taxes, resources and the law of force and motion have to do with the justness or unjustness of self defense of property? Besides, as I showed above, you told me earlier that your argument with them was that private ownership of property is unjust, not defense of property.

If rights don't objectively exist you should be able to answer that question for yourself. How can anyone objectively have a right to use force against me on any occasion if rights aren't real? You can't objectively have something that doesn't objectively exist.

Okay then, it also means you don't have a right to traipse around on my property just because you can walk and that forcing you off doesn't mean anything, correct?

Those things are objectively true, they are true inside and outside of the context of libertarian moral absolutes so I'm sure I've discussed them as a matter fact beyond the context of how they make private property incompatible with libertarian moral absolutes.

Right. So why do you keep ranting about libertarian philosophy with me if this is something you believe in any context?

I have answered, just not in the way you desired. There there.

No you didn't. You accused me of asking a leading question to fish for a particular answer and then, what, you gave the answer you thought I was fishing for anyway?

Sure they do. They show objectively the direction and origin of forces and what these forces are being used for.

So when someone is pushing or punching you, the direction and origin of the force is not obvious? And F=MA does not show what force is used for you idiot.

I wasnt aware I needed to until then.

And now you know.

So yours is an argument about your feelings?

That wasn't an argument, that was an opinion.

Mine did, apparently yours was about your feelings this whole time.

No it didn't.

You don't have to assume when I've argued effectively that justness doesn't even really exist.

Dodging the question is not effective.

Im just smarter than you. Make your own arguments Soy boy instead of trying to ride my back to the conclusions you want.

It was a question, not an argument, dumbass.

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond to your fantasies other than to laugh.

So my assuming you won't squeal about property being subjective or whining about access to my pecans if I remove you is a fantasy? Why is that a fantasy when you "effectively" argued that justness is not a real thing?

It has to do with determining the origins and vectors of force.

So removing you by dragging you by the legs as opposed to simply pushing you off my property makes a difference to..what, exactly? Why does it matter how you are removed?

The irrelevant contexts to my objective arguments is how you feel about them.

What?

Sure it does. How do we determine who's using self defense if we can't discern the origins and vectors of force?

Theoretically, there's only two people involved: the property owner and the trespasser. Do the math you stupid fuck.

Reason is the foundation of my arguments, you construct yours with whatever you like.

You mean like, trying to figure out if the known owner of the property and the only other person present is punching you in self defense? Is that what you call reason?

And put the goddamn joint down. Every time you post when you're high you insert a ridiculous number of emojis. No fewer than sixty six emojis in this post alone.

 

[Curried Goats]

Okay, quote it back then. Show me where I said the word "extralegal", in and of itself, has anything to do with rights outside of the context of the example I gave.

It makes perfect sense to me. Your confusion is your problem.

I didn't say you said that. I said it's confusing when you say it doesn't have anything to do with rights outside the context of rights. Why would anything have to do with rights outside the context of rights?

I think you know that ain't happening.

Bullshit. Your argument with them is about the justification of force regarding property being inconsistent with their beliefs about self defense. That's it. Your argument with me has nothing to do with justification of anything. It has to do with with force being necessary to remove you from property but (so you say) not necessary for you to come on my property.

Why would I be talking about who is using force against whom outside of libertarian moral absolutes here? Regardless, me walking on land (it's only your subjective premise that anything is your property) is not me using force against you, objectively. Also I never claimed walking isn't a force, only that it isn't a force objectively being used against you unless the person happens to be walking on you. Is this something you disagree with?

You cite the law of force and motion to support this argument but the law only applies to the tangible and universal properties of force and motion. Therefore it is irrelevant since the law also applies to any force I may use.

F=MA does not help your argument at all.

What argument is it irrelevant to? If my argument isn't about who's using force against whom under the backdrop of libertarian moral absolutes then what do you imagine it's about? Could you let me know because I'm not privy to your imagination.

No it doesn't. F=MA has nothing to do with libertarian moral absolutes because that is a subjective concept.

It's subjective in the fact that all moral codes are make believe but their make believe does have rules. It's like sports. Their rules are also entirely made up but that doesn't hinder the refs from calling fouls for violations of those made up rules.

It means something to anything and everything that has or can apply force and that can be moved. So what?

I did, dumbass. Or rather, I answered for you: since justness is not a thing, my removing you is neither just nor unjust.

I did answer, just not in the way you desired. You should of just cut to the chase and made the point in the way you wanted to make instead of trying to cajole me into doing it for you.

Yes. But so is moving onto my property. So what?

Irrelevant. The fact remains: removing you from my property is not unjust.

The fact remains that not nothing is objectively your property. Private property is a make believe notion. You continue to make make believe arguments that you imagine superior to my objective ones.

It doesn't take force, objectively, for me to walk on your private property because private property isn't an objective thing. Objectively it takes force for me to walk but unless I'm walking on you, objectively there is no force being applied to you.

No you haven't.

No, it's not.

When I first stepped in it was to address a comment you made to AZrailwhale and it had nothing to do with libertarian moral absolutes. Also, the few exchanges you had with dblack before I stepped in had nothing to do with libertarian moral absolutes either. For that matter, neither did anything else you said to each other after that.

Jesus, I forgot there was a whole other argument you embarrassed yourself with in this thread previously. Thanks for reminding me but me and dblack were having that discussion across multiple threads. The one in this thread just hadn't gotten that far yet before he ran off.

I went back through and reviewed all your posts with dblack in this thread and do you know what I discovered? Not once did the subject of justification of self defense regarding property come up. The closest you ever came to that was when you asked him these questions:

"And if everyone does have equally resourceful land, where are the capitalists? And is this agreement with everyone on earth? What about the people who aren't part of this agreement? It's OK to use force against them?"
Which he never answered.

See. Mine was always about who was using force against whom and whether this is justified by libertarian doctrine. That quote only confirms it.

Also, I came across this gem by you to me:

"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)."
You've been telling me that your arguments to him were about the unjustness of force to protect or defend property in the context of their belief system. But that was after you told me the above earlier that private ownership of property is unjust in the context of their belief system.

As I said, me dblack have been having this argument for a while. At least I've been poking him with it for a while and he's been running away. This isn't the first time I've made that point to him and it won't be the last. I enjoy watching him run away.

I'm not playing that stupid game with you. So I will just assume it has no significance for you outside your personal displeasure at being removed.

I'm not playing any games. I genuinely don't know how you mean significant since it's open to subjective interpretation.

Irrelevant. It still has nothing to do with their beliefs about self defense.


Like I said, irrelevant argument.

If I couldn't parse two separate arguments then I wouldn't be telling you they're two separate arguments you fucking idiot. That they're separate arguments is precisely my point; one has nothing to do with the other.

So why are you confusing my argument for one with my argument for the other?

Let me remind you of what you said regarding resources:

"Private property is about keeping resources for yourself."

This is objective fact.

And

"I said you didn't pay me for it (my property), meaning you didn't pay me so you could have exclusive rights to this natural resource that we would all otherwise have access to."
All this time we've been discussing natural resources on property which you said you don't have access to if I impede your ability to go where you please; "...we would all otherwise have access to." and "...keeping resources for yourself." So either you mean I'm keeping the taxes I pay for myself (which of course is self contradictory) or you attempted a deflection.

This is you confusing one argument for another. The quote you just cited had nothing at all to do with my argument to you about how taxes allow me access to your resources.

That quote above was about how private property is created through threats and uses of force.

You said it was part of your argument and now you're saying it's nonsensical.

I'm not saying any of my arguments are nonsensical. Do you only know how to construct arguments out of make believe of straw?

I'm not back to philosophical beliefs or even rights, you are. Law is the distinction here, not rights or beliefs. Rights can be viewed as a matter of law or they can be viewed outside the concept of law as the Founding Fathers did. In other words, from an extralegal perspective.

I view rights as a make believe philosophical musing. You just seem to be describing make belive to me here.

That ain't happening either. I've explained it enough.

Ok. I'm not bothered by not understanding what you mean. It happens occasionally.

What, extralegal?

Liar. You hadn't asked for examples before I gave you examples. All you said was: "I don't know what the hell secular or extra legal mean in this context."
And
"I still don't know what you mean by extra legal. There's legal and illegal. What's extra legal? Is that like Legal +? Or Legal Max? It sounds like a streaming service."
And
"I still don't know what extra legal is supposed to mean."
Then you said: "Give me an example of something extra legal."
To which I responded with the example of how the Founding Fathers viewed certain rights.

You never asked asked for other examples; you just kept insisting it meant "illegal" to you.

I have asked for other examples since Rights aren't doing the trick but if you're incapable or unwilling oh well.

You mean you don't know what "extraterrestrial" and "extracurricular" mean? Do you think they mean more terrestrial or more curricular? Dumbass.

Did I say extra legal meant more legal? Where?

You don't seriously think I'm vexed over your ignorance, do you?


It's not clear to you because you're not curious. You're not even trying to understand.

So then what's your point?

I know you're vexed because you're imagining motivations for me that don't exist. I'm genuinely trying to understand, I simply don't.

It wasn't an argument you idiot, it was an observation. Or an opinion, if you prefer, since you're obsessed with subjectivism.

Well which is it? Those are kind of opposite things. Observations are objective and opinions are subjective and its not that I'm obsessed, I'm just not particularly moved by arguments constructed out of make believe.

Besides, I just showed you above that you specified "natural resources" that I am "keeping for myself" that "people would otherwise have access to".
You say I'm keeping natural resources (on my property) for myself and not allowing you and others access to them and then when I say you're bothered by this, you divert to taxes.

And? Those are two separate arguments, neither of which you have a good counter argument to.

1. Private property is just a collection of resources you wish to keep for yourself.

2. When done under the cover of the American legal system other citizens have a limited access to your resources through the use of taxes and government spending. It doesn't mean people can just walk on to your property and pick pecans from your tree.

You're a fucking hypocrite and a moron.

Refute what point?

I don't care. Like I said before, I'm only willing to entertain your ignorance for so long. After that, you're on your own.

No, they don't. And you looked up the synonyms because you're too fucking stupid to understand the definition.

Why are you so angry just because I'm having trouble understanding what the word means to you? I undertsand it's synonymous with illegality.

You don't what, use subjective words? That's a goddamn lie.

What does this even mean?

Oh well.

No, I think you don't understand because you have no desire to.

Ok. Feel any way you like.

"Words are subjective and can mean anything we want them to."

Do you remember saying that you stupid fuck? It's METAPHOR you ignorant ass.

It's not metaphor you idiot, it's objectively true. Words are made up. Someone long ago started using the word cool to refer to temperature and then some time later a group of people decided to use the word cool to describe things they liked. Both of these uses are acceptable because people can make up words to mean whatever they want. There is no real objective definition to the word cool just generally or personally accepted subjective ones.

No, it's not.

Here's yet another example for you from recent headlines (USA Today, Nov 1): "Harris voters often cited fears that Trump will ignore the Constitution and use extralegal means to target his enemies..."
This does not mean he will use illegal means, it means he will get back at his enemies in some way other than through the law.

I don't know that's what they mean. I only know that what you think they mean. To me that reads like they think he'd use means that a more responsible administration would find illegal.

I went to the dictionary you used and found this definition and an example:

1 - being beyond the province or authority of law:

example: There were only extralegal recourses for their grievances.
Are you seriously telling me you didn't understand what "beyond the province or authority of law" meant?

To me that sounds like it could be describing revenge which would be illegal in many instances. Say you think your neighbor broke into your house and stole something but you couldn't prove it in a court of law and so you just decided to just beat the shit out him with your brothers and take his dirt bike and Playstation. (The statute of limitations has probably run out on that one..... )

You don't find it odd that the definition did not say "illegal"?

Nope. I also don't find it odd that it's synonymous with illegality. It's a poorly defined word from where I'm sitting.

Already explained.


That's what I said. I did NOT say it was never tested.

That's what I'm saying and I'm telling you why. It's because you yourself said you've never had to do it before.

If you're willing to admit here that it's unjust in the context of libertarian philosophy then why are you so reluctant to say it is not unjust outside that philosophy?

I'm not reluctant to say justness isn't a real thing. I've said that justness isn't a real thing repeatedly. What I'm reluctant to do is to say it in the way you want me to because I don't work for you. Do your own work.

When I asked you if you're saying it is not unjust, you accuse me of asking a leading question and refuse to answer. Why?

I haven't refused to answer. I've refused to give you the answer in the way you want it because I'm not here to do what you want.

Exactly. Which means that saying you can come on my property and demonstrating that ability are two different things too, doesn't it?

Nope. If you want to make an objective argument then don't fashion one that ultimately relies on some make believe notion like property. My objective argument is that I have the ability to walk on land which I have done countless times throughout my life. That you and others feel that some portion of land is your private property is only make believe.

If I chose to take measures to prevent you from accessing it.

That isn't about me not having the objective ability to walk on land, it's about whether I the ability to overcome your obstacles.

No you haven't. When I asked my question, you didn't say anything about libertarian moral absolutes at that time. You accused me of asking a leading question and refused to answer except to say that justness is not a thing. Which, interestingly enough, you never said to the libertarian.

The libertarian can make his own arguments and when he cant he simply runs away. He doesn't insist I answer him in the way he wants me to and then cries when I don't.

You're willing enough to say it is unjust within their philosophy but unwilling to say it is not unjust to me. Again, why?

I'm prepared to make the argument that certain acts of force violate their moral principles and prepared to argue that morality is ultimately subjective. I'm not inclined to help you make whatever argument you're trying to make. Put on your big boy pants and make it yourself.

And access to my resources, let's not forget that. But wait, you already have access to my resources through my taxes, right? So why are we discussing this at all?

You tell me. Are we here for anything other than your salty tears? Is there some argument you want to make?

No it doesn't.

You did not say this to the libertarian. You told him his act of force would be unjust.

What did you mean when you said it?

Do you really need it explained to you that an emotional reaction is an objective, physical response?

Nope. I knew that one already.

You haven't proven that law is force.

You already agreed it was in the way I meant it.

"You can't change the meaning of Extralegal to your meaning and then say you've defeated my argument. That's not how rationality works. You have to attack my argument in my context, not the one you'd rather address it in."

Trying to use my words against me doesn't work in this case because I'm not changing what you mean by extra legal, I've only expressed confusion by what you mean.

Then law is not force, moron.

It is in the way I meant it and you already concede in that instance it is.

Your meaning was F=MA?

Yes. When force is applied. That's what the F stands for Dipshit. It doesn't stand for instances when force isn't applied because then there would be no F. You can't have F = MA with no F can you?

You're the one who said it, not me.

You're just the one who continues to fail to understand it.

I didn't ask for clarification because I didn't need it. You said "Law is force." That's a pretty clear and succinct assertion so I took it as it was. Hence, my arguments against the idea.

You don't feel like you need it but objectively you do. You can't really know what I mean unless I tell you. Without me telling you only have the objective ability to imagine what I mean.

Then why did you refuse to say removing you was not unjust?

Because I don't work for you. I'm more than capable of making my own arguments about justness which is that it isn't a real thing.

Okay.

Because you went straight to their thesaurus and gave me a synonym.


How can you debate the meaning of "extralegal" when you don't even understand what it means?

I'm not debating what you mean by extra legal. I don't know what you mean by extralegal. I know at least some people like myself find it synonymous with illegality but I still have no clue what it means to you.

Are you now admitting that understanding the definition of "extralegal" or what I meant by it was never your goal but rather, proving me wrong about the word not meaning illegal was the goal?

I'm still trying to discern what you mean and it's simply a fact that some people find it synonymous with illegality.

It's still not a definition. The definition says nothing about illegal, even in the dictionary you consulted.

The defintion isn't helping me understand what you mean.

Irrelevant. You said I didn't but I did.

Like "Law is force"?

No it isn't. You meant that law is force because you argued with me when I said it wasn't.

Argued in what context? I argued that the law is a threat as written and force when applied.

You mean like you imagined I was asking a leading question? Like you imagined I was "fishing" for a particular answer?

I don't imagine that, you display the truth of that by suggesting I didn't answer when I just haven't given you the answer in the way you want and repeatedly asking it in the hopes that I eventually do. How about you just accept the answer that I gave you and move on with your life?

Before you ever said anything about justness not being a thing, your very first response to my question was to accuse me of asking a leading question and that I was fishing for a particular answer. This is precisely why you didn't answer "Yes" or "No" and why you later deflected to justness not being a thing.

It was not. The first iteration of this question I can find you asking is post #1149 where you ask if it's unjust to remove me from private property. My response was as follows...

"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."

If you can find any earlier iteration of this question then present it and we can look at my response.

I think you feel that removing you is unjust in some way but you can't say so because you're constrained by your own rules about subjectivism and you know damn well I'll pounce on that shit like a Jamaican on a joint.

Your arguments do seem centered around your feelings..... It nice to have the confirmation.

Yeah, you already said that. I'm saying that because justness is subjective then removing you is not unjust and so it doesn't mean anything at all.

What It are you referring to? What doesn't mean anything at all?

Yet you consulted a dictionary and thesaurus and based on that, you said in this very post that you proved me wrong because this is debate. So apparently you are under some mistaken impression that there is some objective right and wrong form of grammar. Otherwise, why would you think you proved me wrong?

This is you not understanding what you were proven wrong about. I proved that there were people other than just me who found extralegal to be synonymous with illegality.

You're a hypocrite.

It's not hypocrisy when you simply misunderstand something.

You're the one who contradicted himself by saying words are subjective while saying I was objectively wrong about a word's meaning.

I didn't say you were objectively wrong about the meaning of extralegal, that's what you inferred, wrongly, from my statement.

An idiot doesn't sound like an idiot to an idiot.

More arguments about your feelings?

Says the guy who claimed he proved me wrong on a subjective word meaning.

Quote me.

Doesn't matter. I can't take someone who talks like that seriously.

I don't take arguments about your subjective feelings to be objectively sound.

I doubt that very much.

I don't care what you doubt only what you demonstrated which was that you didn't understand him but that he was able to rephrase it in a way you were able to understand, meaning he demonstrated the ability to speak and understand in both his and your dialect of English while you yourself admitted to not being able to comprehend his.

You mean like you "proving" that a subjective word is objectively defined a certain way?

Is that what I claimed to have proved? Quote me.

YOU are the one making it tedious. That was the fucking point. Dumbass.

You said proving someone wrong is the point of debate. Are you trying to prove something or not?

That's what my counter arguments to you would suggest now wouldn't it.

Other discussions are irrelevant.


That doesn't answer the question. What do taxes, resources and the law of force and motion have to do with the justness or unjustness of self defense of property?

Depends on the argument.

If self defense is the only just use force then the way force is relevant to that question is rather self explanatory. Is force being used in self defense, objectively speaking, when used to defend property? Determining who is using force and for what is necessary to answer the question of whether it is just according to some particular code.

If the argument is about whether I have access to resources then whether or not private resources are taxed and whether or not citizens have the ability to direct government resources under this system is relevant to answering that question.

Besides, as I showed above, you told me earlier that your argument with them was that private ownership of property is unjust, not defense of property.

Both private property and defense of private property go against their moral code that force is only just in acts of self defense. Property defense is not self defense, objectively speaking. You and the property you claim as yours are not objectively the same thing.

Okay then, it also means you don't have a right to traipse around on my property just because you can walk and that forcing you off doesn't mean anything, correct?

Why are you constantly trying to make arguments out of questions?

The problem with doing that is that I have questions about your questions. You're trying to infer agreement about some premise that you have yet to establish with me.

1. I don't think rights are a real thing so why would I even need them?

2. Is anything objectively your property?

3. Forcing me off means you're using force against me. That's something.

Right. So why do you keep ranting about libertarian philosophy with me if this is something you believe in any context?

There are two things at play here. One is about objective reality and the other is about how this objective reality is at odds with libertarian philosophy. Objective reality doesn't change if we're talking about them in relation to some moral code or not. I just so happen to be arguing about them in relation to libertarian moral code. You can't attack either which is why you constantly have to admit to using imagination when reality isn't sufficient for you. You imagine me to feel some things are unjust for instance but this isn't any argument I've put forth or that you can quote me making.

No you didn't. You accused me of asking a leading question to fish for a particular answer and then, what, you gave the answer you thought I was fishing for anyway?

If I gave you the answer in the way you were looking for why did you give up and just give it yourself?

I gave an answer, it's just clearly not the one you want.

So when someone is pushing or punching you, the direction and origin of the force is not obvious? And F=MA does not show what force is used for you idiot.

It's an objective defintion of Force, rather than a subjective one. I make objective arguments, I understand though that this confusing for you and the equation will help you discern who or what has a force acting on them, you just have to plug the values in.

And while it isn't confusing to either you or I, libertarians like dblack certainly act confused over the fact that defense of property isn't self defense even though F = MA would suggest to them that the force of someone walking is not force being used against them unless they happen to be under foot. When people reveal how stupid they are to me, I try to dumb things down as much as possible.

And now you know.

That wasn't an argument, that was an opinion.

No it didn't.


Dodging the question is not effective.

It's not a dodge just because it's an answer you don't like. There there.

It was a question, not an argument, dumbass.

Didn't you admit already that you try to make arguments out of questions?

So my assuming you won't squeal about property being subjective or whining about access to my pecans if I remove you is a fantasy? Why is that a fantasy when you "effectively" argued that justness is not a real thing?

Is squealing and whining some sort of objective distinction?

It's fantasy whenever you're assuming or imagining. That's just objectively what that is.

So removing you by dragging you by the legs as opposed to simply pushing you off my property makes a difference to..what, exactly? Why does it matter how you are removed?

It matters subjectively.

What?


Theoretically, there's only two people involved: the property owner and the trespasser. Do the math you stupid fuck.

I'm not the one confusing force to obtain and maintain property with an act of force in self defense. Tell it to libertarians like dblack but be quick before he runs away.

You mean like, trying to figure out if the known owner of the property and the only other person present is punching you in self defense? Is that what you call reason?

I think objective arguments are reasonable and one's fashioned out of feeling or make believe are not.

And put the goddamn joint down. Every time you post when you're high you insert a ridiculous number of emojis. No fewer than sixty six emojis in this post alone.

I got news for you, if I'm posting, I'm posting high.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I didn't say you said that. I said it's confusing when you say it doesn't have anything to do with rights outside the context of rights. Why would anything have to do with rights outside the context of rights?

Not what I said, dumbass. I said it has nothing to do with rights except when the discussion is about rights.

I asked you a question before and you didn't answer. You looked up the definition of "extralegal"; right? Did the definition say anything about rights?

Why would I be talking about who is using force against whom outside of libertarian moral absolutes here?

I don't know. Why did you?

Regardless, me walking on land (it's only your subjective premise that anything is your property) is not me using force against you, objectively.

Doesn't matter. You blew that argument out of the water the second you brought up F=MA.

Also I never claimed walking isn't a force, only that it isn't a force objectively being used against you unless the person happens to be walking on you. Is this something you disagree with?

Irrelevant. You brought up up F=MA, not me.

What argument is it irrelevant to?

Your arguments about force in regards to property.

If my argument isn't about who's using force against whom under the backdrop of libertarian moral absolutes then what do you imagine it's about? Could you let me know because I'm not privy to your imagination.

You admitted already that you've had this discussion regarding private property with non-libertarians. Your arguments on this issue specifically address the notion of private property ownership and free access for everyone to resources. This idea of yours probably conflicts with the thinking of most people who own property. It's just a mere coincidence that it happens to also conflict with certain aspects of libertarian thinking.

So don't pretend now with me that this is about libertarian moral absolutes, especially after I told you a number of times that I don't share their ideas about physical force in self defense but you argued anyway about force to defend private property. And your counter arguments to me about force, taxes and resources have nothing to do with libertarian thinking either.

It's subjective in the fact that all moral codes are make believe but their make believe does have rules. It's like sports. Their rules are also entirely made up but that doesn't hinder the refs from calling fouls for violations of those made up rules.

Irrelevant. The scientific theory of the law of force and motion has nothing to do with subjective philosophies.

I did answer, just not in the way you desired. You should of just cut to the chase and made the point in the way you wanted to make instead of trying to cajole me into doing it for you.

Why can't you do it for me? You say justness is not a thing and yet you can't say removing you is not unjust.

Whether you answer or not, my point is that, justness not being a thing, removing you from my property means absolutely nothing. Do you agree?

The fact remains that not nothing is objectively your property. Private property is a make believe notion. You continue to make make believe arguments that you imagine superior to my objective ones.

What "objective" ones, that it takes force to remove you? So what? I never disputed that property is ultimately subjective so what's your point?

It doesn't take force, objectively, for me to walk on your private property because private property isn't an objective thing.

F=MA.

Objectively it takes force for me to walk but unless I'm walking on you, objectively there is no force being applied to you.

F=MA.

This was brought up by YOU. So if you're going to argue, in part, in terms of scientific law and theory then I will point out that it takes force for you to walk on my property in the first place because that is scientific fact. And if I have fencing and locked gates, even more so.

Either withdraw F=MA as an argument or withdraw your arguments about physical force. You can't have it both ways. If you think you can, I will continue to throw F=MA in your face to show that removing you ultimately means precisely dick.

What's it gonna be?

Jesus, I forgot there was a whole other argument you embarrassed yourself with in this thread previously. Thanks for reminding me but me and dblack were having that discussion across multiple threads. The one in this thread just hadn't gotten that far yet before he ran off.

Irrelevant. You were wrong that I stepped in on that particular discussion with libertarians, yes?

See. Mine was always about who was using force against whom and whether this is justified by libertarian doctrine. That quote only confirms it.

Wrong. Those particular comments asked if force was okay to use against people who were not part of the agreement between the property seller and the buyer.

It was the same question you asked ME, a non-libertarian.

As I said, me dblack have been having this argument for a while. At least I've been poking him with it for a while and he's been running away. This isn't the first time I've made that point to him and it won't be the last. I enjoy watching him run away.

Irrelevant. You've been telling me that force to remove someone is unjustified under their philosophy but you originally told me that private ownership of resources is unjust in their philosophy.

These are two separate arguments.

I'm not playing any games. I genuinely don't know how you mean significant since it's open to subjective interpretation.

Bullshit. I asked if there was ANY significance for you outside your personal displeasure at being removed. If it has no significance or meaning for you then just say so.

Falling back on "subjective interpretations" is a bullshit move since I know the issue of slavery has significance for you even though you admit morality is subjective.

So why are you confusing my argument for one with my argument for the other?

I'm the one who told you they were different arguments, dumbass. You're the one who confused access to mutually shared tax revenue with access to natural resources on private property, which is what we were discussing. Idiot.

This is objective fact.

Irrelevant. You said earlier that private property is about keeping resources for yourself and then you bring up taxes, a resource I don't - and cannot - keep for myself. You deflected and brought up a wholly separate, irrelevant topic to what we were discussing.

This is you confusing one argument for another. The quote you just cited had nothing at all to do with my argument to you about how taxes allow me access to your resources.

No fucking shit you idiot.

That quote above was about how private property is created through threats and uses of force.

Which had nothing to do with access to natural resources on private property, which is what we were discussing and what my comment was referring to.

I'm not saying any of my arguments are nonsensical. Do you only know how to construct arguments out of make believe of straw?

You said "Yes, that's part of my argument." Then you tell me the same thing is nonsensical.

I view rights as a make believe philosophical musing.

What does that have to do with the Founding Fathers viewing certain rights in an extralegal context?

You just seem to be describing make belive to me here.

How the Founding Fathers viewed certain rights is not make believe.

Ok. I'm not bothered by not understanding what you mean. It happens occasionally.

Then why do you keep asking me to explain it?

I have asked for other examples since Rights aren't doing the trick but if you're incapable or unwilling oh well.

There's no practical reason as to why rights is baffling you. I've told you multiple times it is not about rights, it's about how the Founding Fathers viewed them.

Did I say extra legal meant more legal? Where?

You asked me if that's what it meant even after I gave you the other examples. I gave you the other examples that use the same prefix to give you an idea what "extralegal" meant. Boy, was that a mistake. For some insane reason that escapes me, you seem to think the prefix performs a different function with "extralegal" than it does with "extraterrestrial" and "extracurricular". Either that or you have no fucking clue what those words mean either.

On top of that you blindly fixated on the word "rights" when that was never the point. The point was a thing or idea being regarded outside the realm of law.

I know you're vexed because you're imagining motivations for me that don't exist. I'm genuinely trying to understand, I simply don't.

I have no choice but to imagine motivations because I truly cannot believe you are this fucking stupid. I say this with no sarcasm at all.

And you didn't answer the question. You said I protect and defend my property out of my own self interest. I then said that you came onto my property out of your own self interest to which you responded with: "Everyone is only ever doing anything out of self interest."

So what was your point? Why point out that I'm acting in my own self interest when you know you are too?

Well which is it? Those are kind of opposite things. Observations are objective and opinions are subjective and its not that I'm obsessed, I'm just not particularly moved by arguments constructed out of make believe.

I don't care.

And? Those are two separate arguments,

Exactly. One has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

neither of which you have a good counter argument to.

How did you come by the impression that I'm trying to counter either of these things? Besides taxes being irrelevant to what we were talking about (natural resources on private property), I pay them and you pay them. So what? As for the rest, I never disputed that you have the ability to go where you please. We all have this ability. Again, so what?

My point is, and always has been, your ability to go where you please doesn't mean shit. Property ownership being subjective doesn't mean shit. Using force to remove you from my property doesn't mean shit, even if no force was used by you.

Ultimately your arguments - their veracity or non-veracity notwithstanding - don't mean shit.

1. Private property is just a collection of resources you wish to keep for yourself.

2. When done under the cover of the American legal system other citizens have a limited access to your resources through the use of taxes and government spending. It doesn't mean people can just walk on to your property and pick pecans from your tree.

We weren't discussing taxes that you do have access to and we never were. We were discussing what you don't have access to: natural resources on my private property.

The distinction of non-access to natural resources was yours, not mine. It's what the entire argument was about.

Why are you so angry just because I'm having trouble understanding what the word means to you?

It doesn't mean anything to me outside the dictionary definition. It's why I told you to look it up, moron.

I undertsand it's synonymous with illegality.

It's not the definition.

What does this even mean?

Ok. Feel any way you like.



It's not metaphor you idiot, it's objectively true. Words are made up. Someone long ago started using the word cool to refer to temperature and then some time later a group of people decided to use the word cool to describe things they liked. Both of these uses are acceptable because people can make up words to mean whatever they want. There is no real objective definition to the word cool just generally or personally accepted subjective ones.

"Abduction" was a metaphor in the example you gave, dumbass. It was not an actual abduction, it was a metaphor used to condemn the actions of the officers.

I don't know that's what they mean. I only know that what you think they mean. To me that reads like they think he'd use means that a more responsible administration would find illegal.

No, it doesn't.

To me that sounds like it could be describing revenge which would be illegal in many instances. Say you think your neighbor broke into your house and stole something but you couldn't prove it in a court of law and so you just decided to just beat the shit out him with your brothers and take his dirt bike and Playstation. (The statute of limitations has probably run out on that one..... )

Um, no.

Nope. I also don't find it odd that it's synonymous with illegality. It's a poorly defined word from where I'm sitting.

You don't even know what "extraterrestrial" and "extracurricular" mean so that's not saying much.

That's what I'm saying and I'm telling you why. It's because you yourself said you've never had to do it before.

I'm not reluctant to say justness isn't a real thing.

Not what I said.

I've said that justness isn't a real thing repeatedly. What I'm reluctant to do is to say it in the way you want me to because I don't work for you. Do your own work.

You're reluctant to say "Yes" or "No"? How many ways are there to say that?

I haven't refused to answer. I've refused to give you the answer in the way you want it because I'm not here to do what you want.

Answer the question: You accused me of asking a leading question. Why? And what do you imagine the question was leading you to?

Nope. If you want to make an objective argument then don't fashion one that ultimately relies on some make believe notion like property. My objective argument is that I have the ability to walk on land which I have done countless times throughout my life. That you and others feel that some portion of land is your private property is only make believe.

Irrelevant. Saying you have the ability to come on my property and demonstrating that ability are two different things.

That isn't about me not having the objective ability to walk on land, it's about whether I the ability to overcome your obstacles.

If you can't get past my obstacles then objective ability to walk on land is subjective, isn't it?

The libertarian can make his own arguments and when he cant he simply runs away.

Says the guy who runs away from answering a yes or no question.

He doesn't insist I answer him in the way he wants me to and then cries when I don't.

Irrelevant. You didn't say anything about their moral absolutes at the time I asked the question. Your first response to my question was to accuse me of asking a leading question.

You can't even define how I'm trying to get you to answer even though I've said repeatedly said that it's a yes or no question: "Yes, removing me is not unjust." or "No, it is not unjust (i.e., it is unjust)".

Either one of these responses would satisfy me as far as answering the question. You just refuse to answer because it's a catch-22 where either answer makes your entire argument look like a house of cards. If you say it is not unjust you know that would render moot your entire argument about private property and access to resources by divesting it of any intended meaning. If you say "No, it is not unjust" then you have subscribed to the very subjective philosophy you say you don't believe in.

I set a trap for you and the irony is that, thinking you were being clever and avoiding the trap by not answering, you walked right into the trap by not answering.

I'm prepared to make the argument that certain acts of force violate their moral principles and prepared to argue that morality is ultimately subjective. I'm not inclined to help you make whatever argument you're trying to make. Put on your big boy pants and make it yourself.

Again, it was not an argument, it was a question for clarification of your argument.

You tell me. Are we here for anything other than your salty tears? Is there some argument you want to make?

It's your argument, not mine. Is there some argument you want to make? If so, is it about inaccessible resources on private property or accessible resources in the form of taxes?

Nope. I knew that one already.

So why did you ask about subjective opinions when I was talking about objective emotional responses?

You already agreed it was in the way I meant it.

No, I did not. Even given the way you meant it, law is still not force.

Trying to use my words against me doesn't work in this case because I'm not changing what you mean by extra legal, I've only expressed confusion by what you mean.

No, you expressed confusion by what the dictionary means. When you expressed confusion by what I meant, I suggested you look it up because I meant it in the meaning defined there. But because your dumb ass can't make sense of a simple dictionary definition, you simply persisted with "It means illegal to me".

It is in the way I meant it and you already concede in that instance it is.

No I didn't.

Yes. When force is applied. That's what the F stands for Dipshit. It doesn't stand for instances when force isn't applied because then there would be no F. You can't have F = MA with no F can you?

Your arguments have been about when force is used, not about the science of force and motion.

You're just the one who continues to fail to understand it.

I understand that law is not force. What you don't understand is that even when force is applied, law is still not force.

You don't feel like you need it but objectively you do. You can't really know what I mean unless I tell you. Without me telling you only have the objective ability to imagine what I mean.

I tell you what I mean by "extralegal" and tell you to look it up and you still don't know what I mean.

Get outta here with that horseshit.

Because I don't work for you. I'm more than capable of making my own arguments about justness which is that it isn't a real thing.

I didn't ask you to make an argument about justness, I asked you to confirm (since justness is not a thing) that removing you is not unjust.

I'm not debating what you mean by extra legal. I don't know what you mean by extralegal. I know at least some people like myself find it synonymous with illegality but I still have no clue what it means to you.

What I mean by "extralegal" is defined in the dictionary. But you couldn't even grasp that.

I'm still trying to discern what you mean and it's simply a fact that some people find it synonymous with illegality.

Irrelevant. It is not defined as illegal and as I mentioned before, it's not even listed in Webster's Thesaurus.

The defintion isn't helping me understand what you mean.

I can't help you with that.

Argued in what context? I argued that the law is a threat as written and force when applied.

In the beginning you did not. You maintained that law is force until I pointed out that law is not always enforced. Only then did your narrative change.

I don't imagine that, you display the truth of that by suggesting I didn't answer when I just haven't given you the answer in the way you want and repeatedly asking it in the hopes that I eventually do.

Nope. Negative. Not so. As I said before, your very first response to my question was to accuse me of asking a leading question before ever offering an "answer" to it. THAT was why you responded the way you did rather than give an actual direct answer.

How about you just accept the answer that I gave you and move on with your life?

I'm not asking for an answer, dumbass. I'm just reminding you that your response was not an answer.

It was not. The first iteration of this question I can find you asking is post #1149 where you ask if it's unjust to remove me from private property. My response was as follows...

"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."

If you can find any earlier iteration of this question then present it and we can look at my response.

No. The first time I asked that particular question was in the same post but near the end:

I said: "Just to be clear: you’re saying that my removing you from my property is not unjust?"

Your response: "Is that you trying to be clear? It seems more like a leading question."

Your arguments do seem centered around your feelings..... It nice to have the confirmation.

Says the guy who feels afraid that any answer to a simple question will expose his hypocrisy.

What It are you referring to? What doesn't mean anything at all?

Don't be stupid.

This is you not understanding what you were proven wrong about. I proved that there were people other than just me who found extralegal to be synonymous with illegality.

No, you did not. You never said anything about what other people said or think.

I said: "I think you specifically went looking for a way to make me wrong that “extralegal” does not mean 'illegal'”.

You said: "We're debating, proving you wrong is the point..."

Note also that I did not use the word "prove", you did. And as I pointed out to you already, the word does not even appear in Webster's Thesaurus. It also does not appear in the Collins Thesaurus or the Oxford Thesaurus and the definitions from all three are the same.

I've used Dictionary.com before but no longer do. I find they play a little fast and loose with definitions.

It's not hypocrisy when you simply misunderstand something.

It's not misunderstanding when your words don't say or imply anything else beyond what you said. Again, you said: "We're debating, proving you wrong is the point...".

You use this disingenuous ploy all the time where you say one thing and when I call you on it or remind you what you said, you inevitably fall back on "That's not what I meant.". This way you can easily put the burden of interpretation on me and remove the burden of concise speech from yourself.

It's lazy and chickenshit.

I didn't say you were objectively wrong about the meaning of extralegal, that's what you inferred, wrongly, from my statement.

I inferred from the words you used.

More arguments about your feelings?

Sure, aren't yours?

Quote me.

See above.

I don't take arguments about your subjective feelings to be objectively sound.

It wasn't an argument dumbass, and I certainly did not say or imply it was objective.

I don't care what you doubt only what you demonstrated which was that you didn't understand him but that he was able to rephrase it in a way you were able to understand, meaning he demonstrated the ability to speak and understand in both his and your dialect of English while you yourself admitted to not being able to comprehend his.

Again, I don't consider ghetto a dialect.

Is that what I claimed to have proved? Quote me.

In Post #1138 I said: "First of all, 'Tyrants' is a subjective term."

In Post #1139 you responded with: "It is not."

That's what my counter arguments to you would suggest now wouldn't it.

You tell me.

"I'm not trying convince you of anything."

You appear to be contradicting yourself again.

Depends on the argument.

If self defense is the only just use force then the way force is relevant to that question is rather self explanatory. Is force being used in self defense, objectively speaking, when used to defend property? Determining who is using force and for what is necessary to answer the question of whether it is just according to some particular code.

All this does is muddle the issue. The question of who is using force and for what has never been in question in this discussion and has already been established: the guy who owns the property is protecting his property along with himself, his family and his belongings. Also, force only being justified in self defense is a libertarian thing, not mine. So is force on my part to remove you justified or no?

If the argument is about whether I have access to resources then whether or not private resources are taxed and whether or not citizens have the ability to direct government resources under this system is relevant to answering that question.

That still doesn't answer the question. Again, what do taxes, resources and the law of force and motion have to do with the justness or unjustness of self defense of property?

The salient points here are: Justification of Self Defense of Property. Resources are irrelevant to the question of justification unless you're saying you have a right to access them. Are you? Taxes are irrelevant to to this question because we're talking about property. The law of force and motion is irrelevant because how many ft-lbs. of force it takes to remove someone is not in question.

Both private property and defense of private property go against their moral code that force is only just in acts of self defense.

What? Private property ownership does not go against their moral code. Private property and defense of same are two different things.

Property defense is not self defense, objectively speaking. You and the property you claim as yours are not objectively the same thing.

How does this make private property ownership unjust?

Why are you constantly trying to make arguments out of questions?

Why are you constantly confusing questions with arguments?

The problem with doing that is that I have questions about your questions. You're trying to infer agreement about some premise that you have yet to establish with me.

The premise is whether or not forcing you off my property means anything. Hence, the question.

1. I don't think rights are a real thing so why would I even need them?

2. Is anything objectively your property?

3. Forcing me off means you're using force against me. That's something.

So it does mean something? Besides the obvious that I'm using force against you, does it mean anything beyond that?

There are two things at play here. One is about objective reality and the other is about how this objective reality is at odds with libertarian philosophy. Objective reality doesn't change if we're talking about them in relation to some moral code or not. I just so happen to be arguing about them in relation to libertarian moral code. You can't attack either which is why you constantly have to admit to using imagination when reality isn't sufficient for you. You imagine me to feel some things are unjust for instance but this isn't any argument I've put forth or that you can quote me making.

I asked a specific question looking for specific information: Whether or not you are saying that removing you is not unjust. You refuse to answer the question and give me a spiel about not viewing justness as a thing. And before you say you just didn't give me the answer I want, the spiel about justness does not provide the information I seek: Are you SAYING that removing you is not unjust?

Given that you refuse to provide the specific information I seek, I am forced to extrapolate from your not seeing justness as a thing to logically mean you are saying it is not just or unjust. From that I can only conclude that it doesn't mean anything at all.

Is this not a logical conclusion?

If I gave you the answer in the way you were looking for why did you give up and just give it yourself?

I gave an answer, it's just clearly not the one you want.

It was clearly not the one that provided the information I sought and I think that was by design.

It's an objective defintion of Force, rather than a subjective one.

Why do we need an objective definition of force if that doesn't address the particular questions we have about force? How does the formula address when and if force is justified?

I make objective arguments, I understand though that this confusing for you and the equation will help you discern who or what has a force acting on them, you just have to plug the values in.

We already know who or what is using force: the homeowner. What more do we need to know beyond that?

The scenario has already been long established: a property owner forcing someone off his property. This is all just philosophical white noise that answers no questions and serves no purpose.

And while it isn't confusing to either you or I, libertarians like dblack certainly act confused over the fact that defense of property isn't self defense even though F = MA would suggest to them that the force of someone walking is not force being used against them unless they happen to be under foot.

That's just it, the formula tells us only the laws of force and motion which applies to both walking and shoving or punching someone. The formula is not a respecter of philosophies, opinions or motives so it serves no purpose here.

When people reveal how stupid they are to me, I try to dumb things down as much as possible.

How can you tell the difference?

It's not a dodge just because it's an answer you don't like. There there.

It's a dodge if it does not provide the information requested. But that's okay. As I said above, I was able to logically conclude that you think it is not just or unjust.

Didn't you admit already that you try to make arguments out of questions?

I don't remember saying anything like that.

Is squealing and whining some sort of objective distinction?

It's fantasy whenever you're assuming or imagining. That's just objectively what that is.

I imagined you would not squeal and whine if I removed you from my property since justness is not a thing. Was I wrong about that?

It matters subjectively.

Subjectively to what?

I'm not the one confusing force to obtain and maintain property with an act of force in self defense.

I don't understand what that has to do with determining who is using force in a hypothetical situation with only two people involved.

Tell it to libertarians like dblack but be quick before he runs away.

dblack is not the one who ran from my question.

I think objective arguments are reasonable and one's fashioned out of feeling or make believe are not.

Sounds simple enough. Yet you need a scientific formula to tell you that the guy who's punching you is punching you.

I got news for you, if I'm posting, I'm posting high.

That explains a lot.

 

[Curried Goats]

Saw a post of yours the other day and remembered about this thread and then saw this long ass thing and remembered why it took me so long to get back to it that I forgot about it but the mood actually moves me today so....

Not what I said, dumbass. I said it has nothing to do with rights except when the discussion is about rights.

I asked you a question before and you didn't answer. You looked up the definition of "extralegal"; right? Did the definition say anything about rights?

No, you did. I'm still confused about what it means to you and it's relevance here.

I don't know. Why did you?



Doesn't matter. You blew that argument out of the water the second you brought up F=MA.

Irrelevant. You brought up up F=MA, not me.


Your arguments about force in regards to property.

I don't know what you mean by "blew out of the water". My argument is as objectively true today as the day I made it.

You admitted already that you've had this discussion regarding private property with non-libertarians. Your arguments on this issue specifically address the notion of private property ownership and free access for everyone to resources. This idea of yours probably conflicts with the thinking of most people who own property. It's just a mere coincidence that it happens to also conflict with certain aspects of libertarian thinking.

It does seem to conflict with the emotions of a lot of people, libertarian and non libertarian alike, but that doesn't mean it isn't objectively true.

So don't pretend now with me that this is about libertarian moral absolutes, especially after I told you a number of times that I don't share their ideas about physical force in self defense but you argued anyway about force to defend private property. And your counter arguments to me about force, taxes and resources have nothing to do with libertarian thinking either.

Libertarians share many of their moral absolutes with adherents of various forms of judeo-christianity because that's where their philosophy comes from. Either way, it doesn't really matter to me what your moral beliefs are. You interjected yourself into an argument that wasn't about you. My arguments about taxes and force and resources have still been in the context of my original argument. You interjecting yourself into the argument doesnt change my argument. Thats not how that works.

Irrelevant. The scientific theory of the law of force and motion has nothing to do with subjective philosophies.

They do for the sake of my argument since my argument is about how people graft their subjective beliefs on to objective reality.

Why can't you do it for me? You say justness is not a thing and yet you can't say removing you is not unjust.

Because I'm not your parrot. I don't want to do it for you. Unjustness is a belief about how the universe operates that hasn't been proven to be objectively true. I have no reason to believe in it as a real thing. If you want me to say something on justness I would say about it that belief in it is similar to theories on flat earth.

Whether you answer or not, my point is that, justness not being a thing, removing you from my property means absolutely nothing. Do you agree?

No, I don't agree. It means something to both you and me, subjectively, otherwise you wouldn't of mustered up energy to move me and I wouldn't of needed a counter force to be moved.

What "objective" ones, that it takes force to remove you? So what? I never disputed that property is ultimately subjective so what's your point?

That was my point. And that this force isn't objectively defensive of your person in nature. And that non defensive uses of force are counter to libertarian moral absolutes. (And others as well)

F=MA.


F=MA.

Okay. And?

This was brought up by YOU. So if you're going to argue, in part, in terms of scientific law and theory then I will point out that it takes force for you to walk on my property in the first place because that is scientific fact. And if I have fencing and locked gates, even more so.

But that isn't a scientific fact. Scientific facts are objectively true. That a piece of the earth is your property is only subjectively true.

Either withdraw F=MA as an argument or withdraw your arguments about physical force. You can't have it both ways. If you think you can, I will continue to throw F=MA in your face to show that removing you ultimately means precisely dick.

You're throwing it in my face about as effectively as a toddler would. My way doesn't require me to start off on the subjective footing of defending private property rights. Objectively I'm just a guy using force to walk along the surface of the earth.

What's it gonna be?

It going to be me putting a pillow over that feeble argument like it was a old relative who's estate I was set to inherit.

Irrelevant. You were wrong that I stepped in on that particular discussion with libertarians, yes?

Nope. I'm correct. That you interjected into another conversation previously, to similar hilarious results, doesn't change the fact that you also interjected into this one as well. I certainly didn't message you first about all this.

Wrong. Those particular comments asked if force was okay to use against people who were not part of the agreement between the property seller and the buyer.

It was the same question you asked ME, a non-libertarian.

I asked you this question after you interjected yourself into the conversation. And? What about it?

Irrelevant. You've been telling me that force to remove someone is unjustified under their philosophy but you originally told me that private ownership of resources is unjust in their philosophy.

These are two separate arguments.

It's the same argument. One being true makes the other true by default.

Bullshit. I asked if there was ANY significance for you outside your personal displeasure at being removed. If it has no significance or meaning for you then just say so.

You just confirmed that I said it has personal significance and meaning to me. What more do you want?

Falling back on "subjective interpretations" is a bullshit move since I know the issue of slavery has significance for you even though you admit morality is subjective.

Yes. It has subjective importance to me. You just described the sort of importance it has to me. It's not bullshit, that's the answer. The importance slavery has to me is subjective. I'd be the first to admit that. What's the relevance to that, here?

Which had nothing to do with access to natural resources on private property, which is what we were discussing and what my comment was referring to.

Hey, you don't have to convince me to button this shit up.

What does that have to do with the Founding Fathers viewing certain rights in an extralegal context?

How the Founding Fathers viewed certain rights is not make believe.

Then why do you keep asking me to explain it?

Because I don't understand what you're trying to say. The rights the Founding Fathers believed in, inalienable rights, are imaginary.

There's no practical reason as to why rights is baffling you. I've told you multiple times it is not about rights, it's about how the Founding Fathers viewed them.

That's still not clearing up what you mean or what your point with it is.

You asked me if that's what it meant even after I gave you the other examples. I gave you the other examples that use the same prefix to give you an idea what "extralegal" meant. Boy, was that a mistake. For some insane reason that escapes me, you seem to think the prefix performs a different function with "extralegal" than it does with "extraterrestrial" and "extracurricular". Either that or you have no fucking clue what those words mean either.

No need to get angry guy. Just say make your point clearer.

I have no choice but to imagine motivations because I truly cannot believe you are this fucking stupid. I say this with no sarcasm at all.

Okay. Imagine and fantasize away.

And you didn't answer the question. You said I protect and defend my property out of my own self interest. I then said that you came onto my property out of your own self interest to which you responded with: "Everyone is only ever doing anything out of self interest."

So what was your point? Why point out that I'm acting in my own self interest when you know you are too?

My point is that things are only subjectively your property and it's force and threats of force against others that maintains this subjective notion.

My point is, and always has been, your ability to go where you please doesn't mean shit. Property ownership being subjective doesn't mean shit. Using force to remove you from my property doesn't mean shit, even if no force was used by you.

You spent all this time and interjected yourself into this conversation because you desperately wanted to share these feelings you have with me?

That's a choice.

Ultimately your arguments - their veracity or non-veracity notwithstanding - don't mean shit.

To you emotionally? Then why bother with all this?

Answer the question: You accused me of asking a leading question. Why? And what do you imagine the question was leading you to?

I don't have to imagine. You express frustration above that I won't give you the answer in the way you want.

Irrelevant. Saying you have the ability to come on my property and demonstrating that ability are two different things.

You keep trying to start from the premise that your property is some objective thing I have to contend with. It isn't. It's subjective. What I'm saying is I have the ability to traverse the surface of the earth.

If you can't get past my obstacles then objective ability to walk on land is subjective, isn't it?

They are only subjectively your obstacles and no, I demonstrate my ability to traverse the surface of the earth every day.

Says the guy who runs away from answering a yes or no question.

That's a subjective characterization. I've answered it, just not in the way you want me to. You can ask a question and you can desire for me to answer it with a yes or no but I have the ability to answer it whatever way I want.

Irrelevant. You didn't say anything about their moral absolutes at the time I asked the question. Your first response to my question was to accuse me of asking a leading question.

It is by your own admission. You want to lead me to a yes or a no but I refuse to be lead by you. I answer as I choose.

You can't even define how I'm trying to get you to answer even though I've said repeatedly said that it's a yes or no question: "Yes, removing me is not unjust." or "No, it is not unjust (i.e., it is unjust)".

I've defined it as limited in scope by your intent and then you deny that intent and then confirm it. I'm not really sure what you're doing actually.....

Either one of these responses would satisfy me as far as answering the question.

Satisfying you isn't a goal of mine.

You just refuse to answer because it's a catch-22 where either answer makes your entire argument look like a house of cards. If you say it is not unjust you know that would render moot your entire argument about private property and access to resources by divesting it of any intended meaning. If you say "No, it is not unjust" then you have subscribed to the very subjective philosophy you say you don't believe in.

In otherwords, a leading question. I'm too smart for those though.

I set a trap for you and the irony is that, thinking you were being clever and avoiding the trap by not answering, you walked right into the trap by not answering.

I described the trap you tried to set, you denied trying to set it and now you're confirming I was right all along. I'm satisfied here.

Again, it was not an argument, it was a question for clarification of your argument.

It was a leading question that you're using to try to set up a point you're reluctant to try to make yourself, directly.

It's your argument, not mine. Is there some argument you want to make? If so, is it about inaccessible resources on private property or accessible resources in the form of taxes?

Those are separate arguments made in separate contexts. I'm capable making more than one.

No, I did not. Even given the way you meant it, law is still not force.

I meant that when the law is applied its with force and threats of force. Explain why you think this isn't the case.

Your arguments have been about when force is used, not about the science of force and motion.

I tell you what my arguments are about, not the other way around.

I understand that law is not force. What you don't understand is that even when force is applied, law is still not force.

I don't understand what you mean by that. Try and explain it.

I didn't ask you to make an argument about justness, I asked you to confirm (since justness is not a thing) that removing you is not unjust.

See. You were trying to lead me to an argument you want to make but don't know how since justness isn't a real thing.

In the beginning you did not. You maintained that law is force until I pointed out that law is not always enforced. Only then did your narrative change.

You didn't point out how my argument was wrong you just misinterpeted it.

Nope. Negative. Not so. As I said before, your very first response to my question was to accuse me of asking a leading question before ever offering an "answer" to it. THAT was why you responded the way you did rather than give an actual direct answer.

I saw that leading question coming a mile away, that's why.

I'm not asking for an answer, dumbass. I'm just reminding you that your response was not an answer.

You asked me specifically for a yes or no answer and only a yes or no answer like a whiney little bitch. Why are we going back and forth with the admission and denial thing?

No. The first time I asked that particular question was in the same post but near the end:

I said: "Just to be clear: you’re saying that my removing you from my property is not unjust?"

Your response: "Is that you trying to be clear? It seems more like a leading question."


Says the guy who feels afraid that any answer to a simple question will expose his hypocrisy.

That's your fantasy of why I won't give you the answer you want. The reality is I won't give it to because I'm too smart to be lead by you. You have to make your own arguments here. I'm not going to make them for you.

Don't be stupid.


No, you did not. You never said anything about what other people said or think.

I said: "I think you specifically went looking for a way to make me wrong that “extralegal” does not mean 'illegal'”.

You said: "We're debating, proving you wrong is the point..."

Note also that I did not use the word "prove", you did. And as I pointed out to you already, the word does not even appear in Webster's Thesaurus. It also does not appear in the Collins Thesaurus or the Oxford Thesaurus and the definitions from all three are the same.

I've used Dictionary.com before but no longer do. I find they play a little fast and loose with definitions.

You mean you just don't like their definitions but they get to define things however they wish. That's the whole point of subjectivity.

It's not misunderstanding when your words don't say or imply anything else beyond what you said. Again, you said: "We're debating, proving you wrong is the point...".

Are you surprised or something to learn that the intent of debate is to prove the other side wrong?

You use this disingenuous ploy all the time where you say one thing and when I call you on it or remind you what you said, you inevitably fall back on "That's not what I meant.". This way you can easily put the burden of interpretation on me and remove the burden of concise speech from yourself.

I have no burden to be adequately concise (in your opinion). If you want to make arguments about what you think I've meant rather than what you've confirmed I meant that's on you.

It's lazy and chickenshit.

Throw more of your feelings at me.

I inferred from the words you used.

You inferred wrong.

Again, I don't consider ghetto a dialect.

I dont consider your feelings to be statements of objective truths.

In Post #1138 I said: "First of all, 'Tyrants' is a subjective term."

In Post #1139 you responded with: "It is not."

You tell me.

"I'm not trying convince you of anything."

You appear to be contradicting yourself again.

How so? I mean tyrant as someone who usurps the sovereignty of others. Objectively the Slaver Founders did just that. You can use the word tyrant to mean something else but this is the meaning I used it to convey. Is it objectively wrong?

All this does is muddle the issue. The question of who is using force and for what has never been in question in this discussion and has already been established: the guy who owns the property is protecting his property along with himself, his family and his belongings. Also, force only being justified in self defense is a libertarian thing, not mine. So is force on my part to remove you justified or no?

You just described what I'm taking issue with in these arguments. Not just the notion that these actions are counter to libertarian moral absolutes but also the notion that he's protecting his property and himself and his belongings. My argument is that things are only subjectively his property and that objectively he's using offensive force against others to deny them the ability to access resources they are trying to access. That why these actions are counter to libertarian philosophy. They are objectively not self defensive or protective in nature of anything other than self interest.

That still doesn't answer the question. Again, what do taxes, resources and the law of force and motion have to do with the justness or unjustness of self defense of property?

You tell me what those things have to do with unjustness. It's your question...

The salient points here are: Justification of Self Defense of Property. Resources are irrelevant to the question of justification unless you're saying you have a right to access them. Are you? Taxes are irrelevant to to this question because we're talking about property. The law of force and motion is irrelevant because how many ft-lbs. of force it takes to remove someone is not in question.

My salient point is to question the veracity or meaning of self defense in this instance. Someone walking along the surface of the earth, accessing its resources, is not posing any objective threat to you unless the resources they're trying to access is you or on your person.

What? Private property ownership does not go against their moral code. Private property and defense of same are two different things.

How does this make private property ownership unjust?

Private property can not be obtained without force or threats of force and their moral philosophy states force is only just in self defense. How are those not a contradiction?

The premise is whether or not forcing you off my property means anything. Hence, the question.

Who's premise? What premise? Yours?

So it does mean something? Besides the obvious that I'm using force against you, does it mean anything beyond that?

Beyond subjectively? I don't know. Maybe?

I asked a specific question looking for specific information: Whether or not you are saying that removing you is not unjust.

Yes. The affirmentioned leading question.

You refuse to answer the question and give me a spiel about not viewing justness as a thing.

What you're emotionally describing as a spiel was objectively my answer.

And before you say you just didn't give me the answer I want, the spiel about justness does not provide the information I seek: Are you SAYING that removing you is not unjust?

It's not my job to help you find the answers you seek. I don't know why you imagine it is. I said what I said about justness. If you want to know what that is I'd refer you back to that.

Given that you refuse to provide the specific information I seek, I am forced to extrapolate from your not seeing justness as a thing to logically mean you are saying it is not just or unjust. From that I can only conclude that it doesn't mean anything at all.

Why? Is all meaning, to you, confined to how I feel about a thing? I'm flattered.

Is this not a logical conclusion?

Not really. There's all sorts of ways things can mean something beyond how I feel about it.

Why do we need an objective definition of force if that doesn't address the particular questions we have about force? How does the formula address when and if force is justified?

What's this we business? An objective view of force works just fine for my argument. What questions do you have about force?

We already know who or what is using force: the homeowner. What more do we need to know beyond that?

Do we know that? Because above somewhere in the previous post you describe homeowners using force to protect their property and themselves and yet that is a subjective argument because nothing is objectively their property and you accept here that they are the orignators of force. If you combine the two into a coherent logical framework then the only logical conclusion is that the force homeowners uses isn't protective but aggressive, objectively speaking. They are the aggressors.

The scenario has already been long established: a property owner forcing someone off his property. This is all just philosophical white noise that answers no questions and serves no purpose.

You're doing philosophical nonsense. I'm relaying what the objective reality is.

That's just it, the formula tells us only the laws of force and motion which applies to both walking and shoving or punching someone. The formula is not a respecter of philosophies, opinions or motives so it serves no purpose here.

Its purpose is to be an objective formula for determining origins of force.

How can you tell the difference?

It's a dodge if it does not provide the information requested. But that's okay. As I said above, I was able to logically conclude that you think it is not just or unjust.

This only shows your inability to distinguish logic and reason from imagination.

I don't remember saying anything like that.

I imagined you would not squeal and whine if I removed you from my property since justness is not a thing. Was I wrong about that?

See. How am I supposed to objectively measure the whims of your imagination?

Subjectively to what?


I don't understand what that has to do with determining who is using force in a hypothetical situation with only two people involved.

Of course you don't. You described it as protective.

dblack is not the one who ran from my question.

Nobody did. I just didn't answer it the way you wanted me to.

Sounds simple enough. Yet you need a scientific formula to tell you that the guy who's punching you is punching you.

That explains a lot.

I'm using it to show how your description of a protective force is objectively wrong.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Saw a post of yours the other day and remembered about this thread and then saw this long ass thing and remembered why it took me so long to get back to it that I forgot about it but the mood actually moves me today so....


No, you did. I'm still confused about what it means to you and it's relevance here.

I don't know what you mean by "blew out of the water". My argument is as objectively true today as the day I made it.

It does seem to conflict with the emotions of a lot of people, libertarian and non libertarian alike, but that doesn't mean it isn't objectively true.

Libertarians share many of their moral absolutes with adherents of various forms of judeo-christianity because that's where their philosophy comes from. Either way, it doesn't really matter to me what your moral beliefs are. You interjected yourself into an argument that wasn't about you. My arguments about taxes and force and resources have still been in the context of my original argument. You interjecting yourself into the argument doesnt change my argument. Thats not how that works.

They do for the sake of my argument since my argument is about how people graft their subjective beliefs on to objective reality.

Because I'm not your parrot. I don't want to do it for you. Unjustness is a belief about how the universe operates that hasn't been proven to be objectively true. I have no reason to believe in it as a real thing. If you want me to say something on justness I would say about it that belief in it is similar to theories on flat earth.

No, I don't agree. It means something to both you and me, subjectively, otherwise you wouldn't of mustered up energy to move me and I wouldn't of needed a counter force to be moved.

That was my point. And that this force isn't objectively defensive of your person in nature. And that non defensive uses of force are counter to libertarian moral absolutes. (And others as well)

Okay. And?

But that isn't a scientific fact. Scientific facts are objectively true. That a piece of the earth is your property is only subjectively true.

You're throwing it in my face about as effectively as a toddler would. My way doesn't require me to start off on the subjective footing of defending private property rights. Objectively I'm just a guy using force to walk along the surface of the earth.

It going to be me putting a pillow over that feeble argument like it was a old relative who's estate I was set to inherit.

Nope. I'm correct. That you interjected into another conversation previously, to similar hilarious results, doesn't change the fact that you also interjected into this one as well. I certainly didn't message you first about all this.

I asked you this question after you interjected yourself into the conversation. And? What about it?

It's the same argument. One being true makes the other true by default.

You just confirmed that I said it has personal significance and meaning to me. What more do you want?

Yes. It has subjective importance to me. You just described the sort of importance it has to me. It's not bullshit, that's the answer. The importance slavery has to me is subjective. I'd be the first to admit that. What's the relevance to that, here?

Hey, you don't have to convince me to button this shit up.

Because I don't understand what you're trying to say. The rights the Founding Fathers believed in, inalienable rights, are imaginary.

That's still not clearing up what you mean or what your point with it is.

No need to get angry guy. Just say make your point clearer.

Okay. Imagine and fantasize away.

My point is that things are only subjectively your property and it's force and threats of force against others that maintains this subjective notion.

You spent all this time and interjected yourself into this conversation because you desperately wanted to share these feelings you have with me?

That's a choice.

To you emotionally? Then why bother with all this?

I don't have to imagine. You express frustration above that I won't give you the answer in the way you want.

You keep trying to start from the premise that your property is some objective thing I have to contend with. It isn't. It's subjective. What I'm saying is I have the ability to traverse the surface of the earth.

They are only subjectively your obstacles and no, I demonstrate my ability to traverse the surface of the earth every day.

That's a subjective characterization. I've answered it, just not in the way you want me to. You can ask a question and you can desire for me to answer it with a yes or no but I have the ability to answer it whatever way I want.

It is by your own admission. You want to lead me to a yes or a no but I refuse to be lead by you. I answer as I choose.

I've defined it as limited in scope by your intent and then you deny that intent and then confirm it. I'm not really sure what you're doing actually.....

Satisfying you isn't a goal of mine.

In otherwords, a leading question. I'm too smart for those though.

I described the trap you tried to set, you denied trying to set it and now you're confirming I was right all along. I'm satisfied here.

It was a leading question that you're using to try to set up a point you're reluctant to try to make yourself, directly.

Those are separate arguments made in separate contexts. I'm capable making more than one.

I meant that when the law is applied its with force and threats of force. Explain why you think this isn't the case.

I tell you what my arguments are about, not the other way around.

I don't understand what you mean by that. Try and explain it.

See. You were trying to lead me to an argument you want to make but don't know how since justness isn't a real thing.

You didn't point out how my argument was wrong you just misinterpeted it.

I saw that leading question coming a mile away, that's why.

You asked me specifically for a yes or no answer and only a yes or no answer like a whiney little bitch. Why are we going back and forth with the admission and denial thing?

That's your fantasy of why I won't give you the answer you want. The reality is I won't give it to because I'm too smart to be lead by you. You have to make your own arguments here. I'm not going to make them for you.

You mean you just don't like their definitions but they get to define things however they wish. That's the whole point of subjectivity.

Are you surprised or something to learn that the intent of debate is to prove the other side wrong?

I have no burden to be adequately concise (in your opinion). If you want to make arguments about what you think I've meant rather than what you've confirmed I meant that's on you.

Throw more of your feelings at me.

You inferred wrong.

I dont consider your feelings to be statements of objective truths.

How so? I mean tyrant as someone who usurps the sovereignty of others. Objectively the Slaver Founders did just that. You can use the word tyrant to mean something else but this is the meaning I used it to convey. Is it objectively wrong?

You just described what I'm taking issue with in these arguments. Not just the notion that these actions are counter to libertarian moral absolutes but also the notion that he's protecting his property and himself and his belongings. My argument is that things are only subjectively his property and that objectively he's using offensive force against others to deny them the ability to access resources they are trying to access. That why these actions are counter to libertarian philosophy. They are objectively not self defensive or protective in nature of anything other than self interest.

You tell me what those things have to do with unjustness. It's your question...

My salient point is to question the veracity or meaning of self defense in this instance. Someone walking along the surface of the earth, accessing its resources, is not posing any objective threat to you unless the resources they're trying to access is you or on your person.

Private property can not be obtained without force or threats of force and their moral philosophy states force is only just in self defense. How are those not a contradiction?

Who's premise? What premise? Yours?

Beyond subjectively? I don't know. Maybe?

Yes. The affirmentioned leading question.

What you're emotionally describing as a spiel was objectively my answer.

It's not my job to help you find the answers you seek. I don't know why you imagine it is. I said what I said about justness. If you want to know what that is I'd refer you back to that.

Why? Is all meaning, to you, confined to how I feel about a thing? I'm flattered.

Not really. There's all sorts of ways things can mean something beyond how I feel about it.

What's this we business? An objective view of force works just fine for my argument. What questions do you have about force?

Do we know that? Because above somewhere in the previous post you describe homeowners using force to protect their property and themselves and yet that is a subjective argument because nothing is objectively their property and you accept here that they are the orignators of force. If you combine the two into a coherent logical framework then the only logical conclusion is that the force homeowners uses isn't protective but aggressive, objectively speaking. They are the aggressors.

You're doing philosophical nonsense. I'm relaying what the objective reality is.

Its purpose is to be an objective formula for determining origins of force.

This only shows your inability to distinguish logic and reason from imagination.

See. How am I supposed to objectively measure the whims of your imagination?

Of course you don't. You described it as protective.

Nobody did. I just didn't answer it the way you wanted me to.

I'm using it to show how your description of a protective force is objectively wrong.

Get a room.

 

[Curried Goats]

Get a room.

You're in it.

 

[Failzero]

You're in it.

Spam world

 

[dblack]

Spam world

Think of it as tl;dr love letters.