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

[Curried Goats]

Spam world

How are we defining spam here? Posts you feel frail looking at?

 

[Curried Goats]

Think of it as tl;dr love letters.

Imagine as much romance as you like.

 

[Failzero]

How are we defining spam here? Posts you feel frail looking at?

64 Paragraphs in a few posts & replies

 

[Curried Goats]

64 Paragraphs in a few posts & replies

So your feelings then?

 

[dblack]

So your feelings then?

Feelings? We'll, it's frustrating because it's an interesting topic but the two of you have turned it into a mutual masterbation session.

 

[Curried Goats]

Feelings? We'll, it's frustrating because it's an interesting topic but the two of you have turned it into a mutual masterbation session.

I'm at least arguing a point. A point you ran from. You're messaging me just to cry about your frustrations. Maybe have a little self awareness....

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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.

The dictionary definition also didn't say anything about abductions. Did that not occur to you?

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.

I didn't say your argument wasn't true, I said you blew it out of the water when you brought up F=MA.

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.

Again, I didn't say it was not true. In fact, I never said that anything you've said is not true. What I've said, repeatedly, is that it means nothing and makes no difference.

That said, your arguments about private property do not specifically address libertarian beliefs about property, they address the general beliefs about property ownership held by pretty much everybody. This is why I keep telling you libertarian ideology is irrelevant in this discussion between you and me.

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.

It wasn't about you either.

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.

I didn't say your argument changed, dumbass. I'm saying your argument isn't really about libertarian moral absolutes since pretty much everyone has the same ideas about property ownership.

They do for the sake of my argument since my argument is about how people graft their subjective beliefs on to objective reality.

Why does that matter if the same scientific law applies to you encroaching on my property?

Because I'm not your parrot. I don't want to do it for you.

Parrot what? It was a yes or no question.

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.

But you said children living in poverty (or something similar; I forget the specifics) is a "bad thing". Is that not a subjective take on justness on that issue?

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.

So what does it mean to you?

That was my point. And that this force isn't objectively defensive of your person in nature.

Oh? You mean people have never had to defend themselves against burglars, robbers and rapists invading their homes? It hasn't occurred to you that this is exactly what many people think of when they see strangers on their property?

And that non defensive uses of force are counter to libertarian moral absolutes. (And others as well)

And what if it's not counter to my morals? Does this mean anything?

Okay. And?

And it takes force for you to go where you please.

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.

That it takes force for you to go on my property (or anywhere) is a scientific fact.

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.

Exactly. If the same law applies to both of us, how does that help your argument? Why bring it up at all?

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.

So you're gonna stick with F=MA even though it applies to you as well. Got it. In that case, as I said, I will continue to throw it in your face as long as you continue to pretend that the force you use to enter my property is not the same force (under the law of force and motion) that I would use to prevent you from entering my property.

Force is force and you haven't convinced me that the force you use to trespass is any different from the force I would use to prevent you from doing so. And because it is a scientific law, it has no significance to this issue. But you brought it up anyway.

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. As I said, 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. Furthermore, you interjected the discussion yourself when you responded to a comment dblack made to someone else; that someone else being Digital Drifter, the OP.

So fuck off with this "interjected yourself" bullshit, especially when you did it before me. Dumbass.

I asked you this question after you interjected yourself into the conversation.

And I interjected myself after you interjected yourself.

And? What about it?

It has no relevance to what we've been discussing because I have not argued from a libertarian perspective in any way.

It's the same argument. One being true makes the other true by default.

Wrong. Only one of these conflicts with libertarian ideals.

You just confirmed that I said it has personal significance and meaning to me. What more do you want?

What? I asked if there was any significance for you. How does that translate to me confirming that it does?

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.

Telling me it has subjective meaning for you doesn't tell me what that meaning is.

What's the relevance to that, here?

You tell me: what does the act of forcing you off my property mean to you?

Hey, you don't have to convince me to button this shit up.

Do I have to tell you not to bring up irrelevancies?

Because I don't understand what you're trying to say. The rights the Founding Fathers believed in, inalienable rights, are imaginary.

Irrelevant. As I've said repeatedly, the truth or non-truth of rights being inalienable to the Founding Fathers is not the point. The point is that they viewed these rights in an extralegal sense, i.e., not bestowed by, or a matter of, law.

That's still not clearing up what you mean or what your point with it is.

That's because you're obsessively fixated on the subjectivity of rights rather than what the fucking word "extralegal" means, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ASKED FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE, dumbass.

No need to get angry guy. Just say make your point clearer.

How many times do I have to clarify that it's not about the rights themselves but rather, how they viewed them before it becomes clear to you?

This all started when you asked me what "extralegal" means. But after explaining what the word meant and giving you examples of other words with the prefix "Extra-", instead of focusing on the meaning of the word you asked for and received, you instead focused on what "inalienable rights" means and lectured me on its subjectivity.

Okay. Imagine and fantasize away.

Okay, continue to plead lack of understanding after multiple explanations.

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.

Acting out of self interest yourself while at the same time claiming I'm acting out of self interest.

You seem oblivious to the fact that most of the points you bring up to reinforce your arguments apply to you as well. Yet you argue as if my owning and defending my property has some special significance; that my position is one of unfairness or selfishness, that I am the interposer, intruder or repressor.

You spent all this time and interjected yourself into this conversation because you desperately wanted to share these feelings you have with me?

In your first post here you said (to dblack): "No.... the opposite of equal rights is what existed in this country at its Founding."
You interjected yourself into this conversation because you desperately wanted to share these feelings you have about the Founding Fathers?

That's a choice.

As was yours. So?

To you emotionally? Then why bother with all this?

Why are you bothering with all this?

I don't have to imagine.

You're doing exactly that.

You express frustration above that I won't give you the answer in the way you want.

It was a yes or no question. I wasn't expecting anything beyond that. I certainly wasn't expecting an irrelevant explanation about your feelings about justness. Which was made more irrelevant given that you, in fact, view certain things through the lens of justness.

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.

And I have the ability to try to stop you from coming on my property. So what?

They are only subjectively your obstacles

Wrong, they're your obstacles.

and no, I demonstrate my ability to traverse the surface of the earth every day.

And I demonstrate my ability to try to stop you from coming on my property every day. Again, so what?

That's a subjective characterization.

It's a fact that you did not convey the information I sought.

I've answered it, just not in the way you want me to.

No, you didn't. You gave me your thoughts on justness being a thing which I did not ask for. I asked if you were saying that my stopping you was not unjust.

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.

Wrong. You can respond any way you want but there were only two proper answers to the question I asked: Yes, I am saying it is not unjust or, No, I am not saying it is unjust.

It is by your own admission.

What did I admit to?

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 had no problem answering my question where I asked if you agree that removing you from my property means absolutely nothing. When I asked, you said "No, I don't agree.". But for some reason you refuse to give the same yes or no answer to the other question.

I've defined it as limited in scope by your intent

So you accuse me of imagining your motivations while you imagine my motivations?

and then you deny that intent and then confirm it.

I only pointed out that you accused me of asking a leading question right off the bat. I never confirmed or denied asking you a leading question.

I'm not really sure what you're doing actually.....

Watching you squirm.

Satisfying you isn't a goal of mine.

Yet you did answer a yes or no question right here in your latest post.

In otherwords, a leading question. I'm too smart for those though.

You haven't even told me what the question was supposedly leading you to. I've asked at least twice now but you refuse to give any answer at all to that question.

I described the trap you tried to set,

No you didn't. All you've said was that you think it was a leading question and on top of that, you refuse to say what the question was leading you to.

you denied trying to set it and now you're confirming I was right all along. I'm satisfied here.

Not once did I ever deny that I asked a leading question or set a trap.

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.

Wrong. I've already said like three times now that my removing you from my property doesn't mean shit. It can't be any more direct than that.

Those are separate arguments made in separate contexts. I'm capable making more than one.

The context is access to resources. So the obvious question here is: If we already have mutual access to each other's resources by way of taxes, why are we even discussing access to property? Why is my tax money not enough for you?

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 only said law is not force.

I tell you what my arguments are about, not the other way around.

Again, you brought up F=MA, not me. Your initial arguments on force did not involve the scientific law of force and motion until you brought it up. Once you did, the element of science was added to the context, rendering your previous arguments moot since it also applies to you and thus includes the force required for you to traverse my property.

I don't understand what you mean by that. Try and explain it.

It means that, in and of itself, law is not force, even when force is applied in its name.

Applying force is a choice and sometimes the choice is not made.

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.

I've already made the argument I wanted to make; that removing you doesn't mean shit. That said, removing you is neither just nor unjust, correct?

You didn't point out how my argument was wrong you just misinterpeted it.

You maintained for some time that law is force. I saw no other way to interpret it.

I saw that leading question coming a mile away, that's why.

Leading to what?

You asked me specifically for a yes or no answer and only a yes or no answer like a whiney little bitch.

And you refused to answer yes or nor because you're a scared little bitch.

Why are we going back and forth with the admission and denial thing?

Admission and denial of what?

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.

As I said, I've made my argument. I said it was not unjust, unfair, immoral, unethical, whatever. Basically that it doesn't mean shit.

You're the one not making an argument. The argument you are not making is what my removing you from my property means to you. You dance around it with yet another lecture; a lecture about the subjectivity of justness. And when asked directly if it has any significance for you, you refuse to answer.

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.

I see. So you go by an internet dictionary that has existed for precisely twenty nine years as opposed to the three oldest and established dictionaries in the world that have been around for around a century and a half to two hundred years. Okay.

Are you surprised or something to learn that the intent of debate is to prove the other side wrong?

Go back and review the exchange you fucking idiot.

I have no burden to be adequately concise (in your opinion).

Then I have no burden to interpret what you say other than my way, correct?

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.

You made the argument that "extralegal" means "illegal" even after I explained what I meant. Fuck off with that hypocritical horseshit.

Throw more of your feelings at me.

Throw more of yours. Are you surprised or something to learn that you convey your feelings as much as I do?

You inferred wrong.

Then use different words.

I dont consider your feelings to be statements of objective truths.

Did I say it was objective truth?

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?

I said, "'tyrant' is subjective." to which you replied, "It is not." You were objectively wrong when you said "tyrant" was not subjective.

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.

If justness is not a thing, why are you bothering to debate the justness of defending property? You don't believe that having access to resources is just and you don't believe that defending property is unjust. So why does any of this matter to you?

You tell me what your question has to do with anthropology...

Where the hell does this come from?

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.

So I'll ask again: Are you saying you have the right to access resources on someone's property? If you are not saying you have this right, and given that justness is not a thing to you, then his self defense of his property is not unjust and means precisely nothing, correct?

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?

I'll ask again what I asked numerous times earlier in the discussion: When? Where? Who? How?

You keep repeating this nugget about force and violence in acquisition and ownership of property yet I've never seen it and you refused to answer these questions.

Who's premise? What premise? Yours?

Yes. The premise behind my questions was to ascertain whether or not removing you from my property has some significance or meaning for you. Was that not obvious?

Beyond subjectively? I don't know. Maybe?

So what does it mean to you subjectively?

Yes. The affirmentioned leading question.

Leading to what? And it's "aforementioned".

What you're emotionally describing as a spiel was objectively my answer.

It was a response, not an answer to the question. I still don't know if you are saying removing you is not unjust. That being the case, I could only infer by logical deduction that, since justness is not a thing to you, removing you is neither just nor 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.

Why would you have to "find" the answer? You don't know if you're saying it is not unjust? If you don't know what you're saying about it, who else am I going to ask?

Why? Is all meaning, to you, confined to how I feel about a thing? I'm flattered.

If I ask what it means to you then yes, of course the question is confined to how you feel about a thing.

If the question is: Does it have any objective meaning to everybody or everything? The answer is one big question mark. That being the case, we can consider the issue of property ownership and defense of said property a non-issue.

Not really. There's all sorts of ways things can mean something beyond how I feel about it.

I'm not asking if it means anything beyond how you feel about it, I'm asking how you 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?

I just asked questions about force and you ask me what questions I have about force.

Do we know that?

Isn't the homeowner using force to defend his property at the very root of your arguments?

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 just answered a question about who is using force by telling me the subjectivity of the concept behind the homeowner's use of force.

You're don't philosophical nonsense. I'm relaying what the objective reality is.

Right, the objective reality of force and motion. This same objective reality also means it takes force for you to go where you please so the law of force and motion serves no purpose here.

Its purpose is to be an objective formula for determining origins of force.

You just told me that's the homeowner.

This only shows your inability to distinguish logic and reason from imagination.

Let me get this straight: You say justness is not a thing yet it's my imagination that you feel removing you is neither just nor unjust?

See. How am I supposed to objectively measure the whims of your imagination?

So are you saying you would squeal and whine if I removed you from my property?

Of course you don't. You described it as protective.

What does that have to do with determining who is using force?

You keep addressing the question of who is using force with an answer about why they're using force.

Nobody did. I just didn't answer it the way you wanted me to.

So what does it have to do with dblack? You're the one who brought him up, not me.

I'm using it to show how your description of a protective force is objectively wrong.

What does this have to do with the question of who is using force?

 

[Curried Goats]

The dictionary definition also didn't say anything about abductions. Did that not occur to you?

I believe it was a thesaurus that did that, it's been a while.

I didn't say your argument wasn't true, I said you blew it out of the water when you brought up F=MA.

How so?

Again, I didn't say it was not true. In fact, I never said that anything you've said is not true. What I've said, repeatedly, is that it means nothing and makes no difference.

That said, your arguments about private property do not specifically address libertarian beliefs about property, they address the general beliefs about property ownership held by pretty much everybody. This is why I keep telling you libertarian ideology is irrelevant in this discussion between you and me.

It relevant to your questions about motivations. Libertarian ideology is at conflict with itself, objectively, and pointing out and arguing that conflict amuses me. Other people have other emotional conflicts to rational thinking and that amuse me as well so libertarians don't have sole providence of getting this argument wrong, but that's where this started.

It wasn't about you either.


I didn't say your argument changed, dumbass. I'm saying your argument isn't really about libertarian moral absolutes since pretty much everyone has the same ideas about property ownership.

I dont. Not that I dont think it should be a thing, just that I don't need to construct any fantasies around it. I may not know the particulars of your fantasy but I can recognize the fantasy in your argument all the same.

Why does that matter if the same scientific law applies to you encroaching on my property?

Is it your property? Objectively? Scientifically? If I look into a microscope on a blade of grass on what you claim is yours will I see any evidence of a relationship? Or do I have to go down to county records for that?

It's the your property aspect of your argument that you refuse to even address. Is it? Objectively? Prove it. Argue it. How? Establish this objective bit of ownership.

Parrot what? It was a yes or no question.


But you said children living in poverty (or something similar; I forget the specifics) is a "bad thing". Is that not a subjective take on justness on that issue?

That's just me expressing a personal sentiment my guy. Are you confused what those are?

So what does it mean to you?


Oh? You mean people have never had to defend themselves against burglars, robbers and rapists invading their homes? It hasn't occurred to you that this is exactly what many people think of when they see strangers on their property?

Again, their property? Let's tackle that aspect because that is central to my whole argument against you. It's one built on subjectivity. Now rape is someone using force against you, objectively speaking. The rest is subjective to you as a self interested property owner and the government in maintaining its rule of law.

And what if it's not counter to my morals? Does this mean anything?

I dont care about your morals unless they happen to be humorously in conflict with with objective reality like our libertarian friends. It's how your argument is objectively wrong that amuses me about you.

And it takes force for you to go where you please.

Not force against your person.

That it takes force for you to go on my property (or anywhere) is a scientific fact.

Is it your property? Objectively speaking?

Exactly. If the same law applies to both of us, how does that help your argument? Why bring it up at all?


So you're gonna stick with F=MA even though it applies to you as well. Got it. In that case, as I said, I will continue to throw it in your face as long as you continue to pretend that the force you use to enter my property is not the same force (under the law of force and motion) that I would use to prevent you from entering my property.

You're skipping ahead before you address the your property aspects of your argument. My argument is that it's force and threats of force that maintain the fantasy of anything being your property in the first place. As I said property owners aren't defending themselves from force in the presence of trespassers, it's their threats and uses of force that designates anyone to even be trespassing anywhere to begin with.

Force is force and you haven't convinced me that the force you use to trespass is any different from the force I would use to prevent you from doing so. And because it is a scientific law, it has no significance to this issue. But you brought it up anyway.

When I walk my force is being applied to the surface of the earth. When you use force to remove "trespassers" you're using force against other people. My argument isnt so much that force exists in this scenario, it's to point out who is initiating force against who, objectively speaking.

Wrong. As I said, 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. Furthermore, you interjected the discussion yourself when you responded to a comment dblack made to someone else; that someone else being Digital Drifter, the OP.

The comment you interjected yourself in with AZ was the first argument of mine you interjected yourself into in this thread and that ended with you saying oh well after AZ confirmed he understood what I meant just fine and used the word you hilariously objected to me using in the same exact way that I did. This came after. And I don't have a problem with you interjecting, I just find i5 amusing when you interject and then try to tell me what I was arguing about.

So fuck off with this "interjected yourself" bullshit, especially when you did it before me. Dumbass.

There there.

And I interjected myself after you interjected yourself.


It has no relevance to what we've been discussing because I have not argued from a libertarian perspective in any way.


Wrong. Only one of these conflicts with libertarian ideals.

They both do by default but you can't really know that until you're emotionally prepared to have the argument about what is or isn't objectively, your property.

What? I asked if there was any significance for you. How does that translate to me confirming that it does?

I don't know what you mean really. Its a weird question. It has meaning to my position in time and space and personal meaning to me.

Telling me it has subjective meaning for you doesn't tell me what that meaning is.

Do you want to talk about my feelings or something? Or how displacement works?

You tell me: what does the act of forcing you off my property mean to you?

It means you are either still confused about what objective reality is or you really do think arguments fashioned from make believe are intellectually sound.

Do I have to tell you not to bring up irrelevancies?


Irrelevant. As I've said repeatedly, the truth or non-truth of rights being inalienable to the Founding Fathers is not the point. The point is that they viewed these rights in an extralegal sense, i.e., not bestowed by, or a matter of, law.

And? I don't care about the fantasies of old dead slavers. What was the point of that again?

That's because you're obsessively fixated on the subjectivity of rights rather than what the fucking word "extralegal" means, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ASKED FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE, dumbass.

And I'm still confused. Confused by what you mean and what your point even is. I don't care how the Founders fantasies.

How many times do I have to clarify that it's not about the rights themselves but rather, how they viewed them before it becomes clear to you?

What does it matter how they viewed them?

This all started when you asked me what "extralegal" means. But after explaining what the word meant and giving you examples of other words with the prefix "Extra-", instead of focusing on the meaning of the word you asked for and received, you instead focused on what "inalienable rights" means and lectured me on its subjectivity.

Okay, continue to plead lack of understanding after multiple explanations.

Its meaning to you and it's relevance remains unclear to me.

Acting out of self interest yourself while at the same time claiming I'm acting out of self interest.

And? Im not arguing that Im acting out of anything but self interest. My argument isn't against self interest but against the pageantry and propaganda you all tell yourselves to avoid the self interest at the the heart of your actions. You have to pretend "trespassers" are people who are doing something objectively wrong or harmful to you even and that your violent actions against them are and defense rather than self interest.

You seem oblivious to the fact that most of the points you bring up to reinforce your arguments apply to you as well. Yet you argue as if my owning and defending my property has some special significance; that my position is one of unfairness or selfishness, that I am the interposer, intruder or repressor.

You're the one being emotional about it all. My argument, at its core, is coldly rational. I'm not using words like unfair to make my argument. That's subjective. I'm pointing out, objectively, that it's property owners removing "trespassers" who are objectively the violent aggressors and that "trespassers" objectively, are just people traversing the surface of the earth.

In your first post here you said (to dblack): "No.... the opposite of equal rights is what existed in this country at its Founding."
You interjected yourself into this conversation because you desperately wanted to share these feelings you have about the Founding Fathers?

That's not a feeling you dipshit. That's called a fact. Equal rights among people during the Founders time wasnt a thing.


God damn you're stupid! (this is what an expression of sentiment looks like)

As was yours. So?

Why are you bothering with all this?


You're doing exactly that.


It was a yes or no question. I wasn't expecting anything beyond that. I certainly wasn't expecting an irrelevant explanation about your feelings about justness. Which was made more irrelevant given that you, in fact, view certain things through the lens of justness.

It was a yes or no question. As the question asker you can ask whatever question you like however you like. As the person answering it I'm not confined to a yes or no response unless I confine myself to one and in this case I see no reason to, nor do I desire to.

And I have the ability to try to stop you from coming on my property. So what?


Wrong, they're your obstacles.


And I demonstrate my ability to try to stop you from coming on my property every day. Again, so what?

Ive never tried coming on your property. I dont even know where you live.

It's a fact that you did not convey the information I sought.

And? It's not my job to educate you. l

No, you didn't. You gave me your thoughts on justness being a thing which I did not ask for. I asked if you were saying that my stopping you was not unjust.

And I explained why i thought that question nonsensical. Because justness isn't a real thing. Just because you ask a question doesn't mean I'm under some obligation to respect it's premise.

Wrong. You can respond any way you want but there were only two proper answers to the question I asked: Yes, I am saying it is not unjust or, No, I am not saying it is unjust.

When you say there are only two proper responses do mean like according to the universe or to you, emotionally?

What did I admit to?

That you tried to set a trap.

You had no problem answering my question where I asked if you agree that removing you from my property means absolutely nothing. When I asked, you said "No, I don't agree.". But for some reason you refuse to give the same yes or no answer to the other question.

Its a different question you dipshit. Why should I approach them the same? One is open about meaning which exists, subjectively, and the other is about justness which doesn't exist at all even though people imagine and wish it did.

So you accuse me of imagining your motivations while you imagine my motivations?

I'm not imaging. You admitted that you were trying to set a trap all along. Don't be a little bitch about now just because I sniffed you out way back when when you tried to set it. I didn't make you confirm that for me.

I only pointed out that you accused me of asking a leading question right off the bat. I never confirmed or denied asking you a leading question.

Watching you squirm.

But you did, eventually, because you're a moron who's easily played.

Yet you did answer a yes or no question right here in your latest post.

You haven't even told me what the question was supposedly leading you to. I've asked at least twice now but you refuse to give any answer at all to that question.

You admitted it you dipshit. You admitted you tried to set some silly rehatorical trap since you didn't have an actual rational argument you wanted to make.

No you didn't. All you've said was that you think it was a leading question and on top of that, you refuse to say what the question was leading you to.

Not once did I ever deny that I asked a leading question or set a trap.

So why are you trying to argue about something you don't deny?

Wrong. I've already said like three times now that my removing you from my property doesn't mean shit. It can't be any more direct than that.

Ok. Is this about your feelings? Why are you throwing your feelings at me like I care?

The context is access to resources. So the obvious question here is: If we already have mutual access to each other's resources by way of taxes, why are we even discussing access to property? Why is my tax money not enough for you?

Different arguments. One is about the inherent violent nature of property ownership itself and the other is about how taxes work in our democratic society. Property ownership is something that can exist in many governments and contexts beyond our democratic one. My arguments about property are objectively true no matter the political context of the society they exist in and my arguments about taxes are specifically true about our society.

I only said law is not force.

That's not much of an explanation on what that even means.

Again, you brought up F=MA, not me. Your initial arguments on force did not involve the scientific law of force and motion until you brought it up. Once you did, the element of science was added to the context, rendering your previous arguments moot since it also applies to you and thus includes the force required for you to traverse my property.

My argument was always about objective reality verse propaganda and make believe. You're just the only person I've had to define what I mean by force for.

It means that, in and of itself, law is not force, even when force is applied in its name.

Applying force is a choice and sometimes the choice is not made.

So like when the law isn't being applied? Because my argument is about when it is. Must we really retread this old ground?

I've already made the argument I wanted to make; that removing you doesn't mean shit. That said, removing you is neither just nor unjust, correct?

Justness and unjustness aren't real things. What it is, objectively, is an aggressive use of force against someone who wasn't objectively using force against you.

You maintained for some time that law is force. I saw no other way to interpret it.

You didn't think to ask?

Leading to what?

To the rhetorical trap you already admitted to trying to set.

And you refused to answer yes or nor because you're a scared little bitch.

Because I'm too smart for your trap that I saw coming like 9 posts ago or however long ago it was.

Admission and denial of what?


As I said, I've made my argument. I said it was not unjust, unfair, immoral, unethical, whatever. Basically that it doesn't mean shit.

Well thanks for sharing those feelings but it has nothing to do with my argument.

You're the one not making an argument. The argument you are not making is what my removing you from my property means to you. You dance around it with yet another lecture; a lecture about the subjectivity of justness. And when asked directly if it has any significance for you, you refuse to answer.

What do you mean what it means to me? You want me to share my feelings with you? Are we friends or something?

Objectively, it means you're the aggressor.

I see. So you go by an internet dictionary that has existed for precisely twenty nine years as opposed to the three oldest and established dictionaries in the world that have been around for around a century and a half to two hundred years. Okay.

Doesn't that hurt you feelings?

Go back and review the exchange you fucking idiot.


Then I have no burden to interpret what you say other than my way, correct?

You don't but arguing against your imagined interpretation is what a strawman is.

You made the argument that "extralegal" means "illegal" even after I explained what I meant. Fuck off with that hypocritical horseshit.

I made the argument that "illegal" could be synonymous with extralegal and then provided evidence that proved it. As for what you mean by it and it's purpose I still don't know.

Throw more of yours. Are you surprised or something to learn that you convey your feelings as much as I do?

Nope. I would be surprised to learn that my arguments rely on as much feeling as yours do though since I always intend for my arguments to based on objective reality.

Then use different words.

Did I say it was objective truth?


I said, "'tyrant' is subjective." to which you replied, "It is not." You were objectively wrong when you said "tyrant" was not subjective.

I wasn't wrong that the slaver Founders were tyrants when you take tyrants to mean usurpers of sovereignty. If you mean that the word tyrant is itself subjective in the same way all words are can be used to mean something else then my argument wasn't about that.

If justness is not a thing, why are you bothering to debate the justness of defending property? You don't believe that having access to resources is just and you don't believe that defending property is unjust. So why does any of this matter to you?

Where the hell does this come from?

Well one, justness is a thing, subjectively, to libertarians and so my point originally was to show how property ownerhship is counter to this subjective sense of justice. I did this not by arguing that property ownership is actually unjust but by arguing property owners as the initial aggressors. I leave the Libertarians themselves to wrestle with the subjective moral implications of that objective truth.

So I'll ask again: Are you saying you have the right to access resources on someone's property? If you are not saying you have this right, and given that justness is not a thing to you, then his self defense of his property is not unjust and means precisely nothing, correct?

That you keep asking about if I think i have the right shows that you dont even fully grasp my argument, even after all this. Rights arent a real thing. I don't need a right to do anything anymore than I need a golden ticket from a bald eagle to take shit in the morning. All I need are full bowels. What you need to be addressing is the subjective nature of his property. Fix your argument so it doesn't rest on a foundation of feelings.

What Im saying is that in nature there are humans and we humans live on a planet of useful resources and the attempts to keep some of these resources for ourselves under a fantasy of legal ownership is actually a manufactured system maintained by violence and threats of violence making property owners violent aggressors, inherently and objectively. Not that I myself am opposed or above these acts of aggression and violence but that they are what they are just that.

I'll ask again what I asked numerous times earlier in the discussion: When? Where? Who? How?

What? Ive explained the who when, where, who and how. In the places people own property, by people who own property, when they obtained this property, by threats and uses of force.

You keep repeating this nugget about force and violence in acquisition and ownership of property yet I've never seen it and you refused to answer these questions.

I'm happy to answer them, I just did. I even explained the science to you. See when you put your hands on someone else, that's you using force against them. When you put your hands on someone to remove them from a piece of the earth you're claiming for yourself, you're the violent aggressor, objectively. That's the argument I've been making this entire time. What do you mean you don't see it?

Yes. The premise behind my questions was to ascertain whether or not removing you from my property has some significance or meaning for you. Was that not obvious?

So what does it mean to you subjectively?

What does it matter what it means to me personally? Why are you so invested in my emotions?

Leading to what? And it's "aforementioned".


It was a response, not an answer to the question. I still don't know if you are saying removing you is not unjust. That being the case, I could only infer by logical deduction that, since justness is not a thing to you, removing you is neither just nor unjust.

You don't have to infer that you dipshit since I've said, plainly, that justness isn't a thing.

Why would you have to "find" the answer? You don't know if you're saying it is not unjust? If you don't know what you're saying about it, who else am I going to ask?

You're confusing yourself with this silly trap my guy. One line above you were telling me how you infer that it's neither just or unjust (because justness isn't a thing) and now you're trying to weasle back to a determination of not unjust. What's with the rhetorical word games? Your trap is already blown.

If I ask what it means to you then yes, of course the question is confined to how you feel about a thing.

I'm flattered that you're so interested in my feelings but why?

If the question is: Does it have any objective meaning to everybody or everything? The answer is one big question mark. That being the case, we can consider the issue of property ownership and defense of said property a non-issue.

Objective meaning is objective because it's true no matter how you feel about it.

I'm not asking if it means anything beyond how you feel about it, I'm asking how you feel about it.

Why? Why are you so thirsty for my feelings?

I just asked questions about force and you ask me what questions I have about force.


Isn't the homeowner using force to defend his property at the very root of your arguments?

Whether it is his property, objectively speaking, is what is at the root of my argument. It can't objectively be self defense if the answer is no. It's violently aggressive self interest. And he isn't forced into this action, choosing to use violence to keep a piece of the earth as your own and out of the reach of others is a willful choice.

You just answered a question about who is using force by telling me the subjectivity of the concept behind the homeowner's use of force.

What? I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

Right, the objective reality of force and motion. This same objective reality also means it takes force for you to go where you please so the law of force and motion serves no purpose here.

It serves my purpose just fine. It shows that one set of people is using force to move around and the other set of people are using force against others.

You just told me that's the homeowner.


Let me get this straight: You say justness is not a thing yet it's my imagination that you feel removing you is neither just nor unjust?

Again, what? I'm not arguing in terms of justness apart from how it's unjust according to libertarian moral absolutes to be the aggressor.

So are you saying you would squeal and whine if I removed you from my property?

No. You're trying to say that but being such an absolute bitch about it that your trying to pass it off as me. Otherwise quote me you fucking clown.

What does that have to do with determining who is using force?

You keep addressing the question of who is using force with an answer about why they're using force.

Again, what? Ive addressed both. The person walking is using force against the surface of the earth, the person removing trespassers is using force against others and the why for both of those is self interest.

So what does it have to do with dblack? You're the one who brought him up, not me.

That property ownership is counter to libertarian moral absolutes since it requires violence and threats of violence from the onset.

What does this have to do with the question of who is using force?

It has to do with showing what is actually being protected by a property owners use of violence to defend their claim. Self interest.

 

[Failzero]

Spamtasm

 

[Curried Goats]

Spamtasm

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I believe it was a thesaurus that did that, it's been a while.

The thesaurus doesn't define words, it gives synonyms.

How so?

Because it applies equally to both the person traipsing on property and the property owner trying to stop him. It takes force to do either one.

It relevant to your questions about motivations. Libertarian ideology is at conflict with itself, objectively, and pointing out and arguing that conflict amuses me. Other people have other emotional conflicts to rational thinking and that amuse me as well so libertarians don't have sole providence of getting this argument wrong, but that's where this started.

Wrong. It started when you entered the discussion on Page 3 to counter a comment by dblack about equity and equal rights. After that, I entered the discussion on Page 24 to address a comment you made to AZrailwhale regarding the value of a worker or his labor to an employer. Later, I came back in to address a comment you made to dblack about equity and DEI. It was not long after this point when you brought your argument with dblack about property and rights into the exchange between you and me.

So no, that's not where this started.

I dont.

Obviously.

Not that I dont think it should be a thing, just that I don't need to construct any fantasies around it. I may not know the particulars of your fantasy but I can recognize the fantasy in your argument all the same.

What fantasy is that?

Is it your property? Objectively? Scientifically? If I look into a microscope on a blade of grass on what you claim is yours will I see any evidence of a relationship? Or do I have to go down to county records for that?

Does it matter?

It's the your property aspect of your argument that you refuse to even address. Is it? Objectively? Prove it. Argue it. How? Establish this objective bit of ownership.

I've already said that I understand property ownership is ultimately subjective so you're wasting your breath. I'm just waiting to see if you'll come to the realization that it means nothing and that subjective ownership will never change.

You said something early in the discussion about the natural, physical world - as opposed to subjective ideas, beliefs and concepts - and sharing the resources of that natural world. But you forgot something; we are a product of evolution by natural selection. This means nature and the natural world instilled in humans the instinct to keep and defend what's ours, including a home or a place to set down roots.

You say property is ultimately subjective but our instinct to defend our homes is not. Man has an ancient and innate instinct to claim territory, call it home, raise a family and defend both. This is in our DNA just as it is in the DNA of most of the fauna on this planet. It's even in the DNA of flora.

It goes all the way back to the start of life 3.5 billion years ago and the start of animal life about 600 million years ago. Animals have been fighting over territory this whole time and hominids have been doing the same for about 18 million years.

And here you come, 18 million years of survival instinct later, preaching about subjectivism like we're going to undo millions of years of instinct because you feel entitled to our apple trees.

And if you think all of this is only about preventing some idiot from accessing natural resources, you are a fucking simple minded, selfish, puling and whiny bitch. We don't just defend our homes to keep people from accessing our apple trees, we defend our homes because we have families that live there.

That's just me expressing a personal sentiment my guy. Are you confused what those are?

Every time I express anything resembling feelings you throw sarcastic barbs at me, post your idiotic laugh emojis and tell me you're not interested. But when you do the same thing and I point it out, you imply I'm confused what feelings are. Goddamn you're a hypocrite.

Again, their property? Let's tackle that aspect because that is central to my whole argument against you.

I thought your argument was against libertarians.

It's one built on subjectivity. Now rape is someone using force against you, objectively speaking. The rest is subjective to you as a self interested property owner and the government in maintaining its rule of law.

Are you now saying that ownership of ALL property is subjective, including things like jewelry, TVs, vehicles, bicycles and whatnot? Do you consider these things to be resources you should have access to? Because that's what I'm talking about when I say burglars and robbers.

I dont care about your morals unless they happen to be humorously in conflict with with objective reality like our libertarian friends. It's how your argument is objectively wrong that amuses me about you.

What have I said that is objectively wrong?

Not force against your person.

So F=MA is irrelevant then, right?

Is it your property? Objectively speaking?

Irrelevant. I'm arguing based on the formula you brought up. But because you did, I'm going to argue that it takes force for you to move about.

You're skipping ahead before you address the your property aspects of your argument.

I'm not skipping ahead, I'm ignoring it because it became irrelevant the moment you brought up F=MA.

My argument is that it's force and threats of force that maintain the fantasy of anything being your property in the first place.

But you refuse to answer the questions as to when, where, who, how the force is being applied.

As I said property owners aren't defending themselves from force in the presence of trespassers, it's their threats and uses of force that designates anyone to even be trespassing anywhere to begin with.

And what meaning does this have for you?

When I walk my force is being applied to the surface of the earth.

No it's not. The force is being applied by your muscles to your bones and tendons to effect movement. The force being applied to the surface of the Earth is gravity.

When you use force to remove "trespassers" you're using force against other people. My argument isnt so much that force exists in this scenario, it's to point out who is initiating force against who, objectively speaking.

So? What does this mean to you?

The comment you interjected yourself in with AZ was the first argument of mine you interjected yourself into in this thread and that ended with you saying oh well after AZ confirmed he understood what I meant just fine and used the word you hilariously objected to me using in the same exact way that I did. This came after. And I don't have a problem with you interjecting, I just find i5 amusing when you interject and then try to tell me what I was arguing about.

Irrelevant. The point is that you claimed I interjected myself into your discussion with dblack when I did not. You were the one who brought that argument about libertarian beliefs to our exchange.

There there.

Yeah, you accuse me of doing the same thing you did in this thread but I'm the frail one.

They both do by default but you can't really know that until you're emotionally prepared to have the argument about what is or isn't objectively, your property.

Doesn't pretty much everyone have the same ideas about property? Are libertarians unique in this regard?

I don't know what you mean really.

Yes you do.

Its a weird question. It has meaning to my position in time and space and personal meaning to me.

Every time you don't want to answer a question you plaintively declare "I don't know what you mean."

So what does it mean personally to you?

Do you want to talk about my feelings or something?

Your feelings about being removed from property, yes. Was that not clear?

It means you are either still confused about what objective reality is or you really do think arguments fashioned from make believe are intellectually sound.

What arguments are those?

And? I don't care about the fantasies of old dead slavers. What was the point of that again?

You would know the point if you hadn't kept harping about the subjectivity of the concept of inalienable rights after I told you several times that the rights themselves were not the fucking point. Now you're gonna bitch and whine as if I was the one who confused the issue. Jesus Christ what a moron.

And I'm still confused. Confused by what you mean and what your point even is. I don't care how the Founders fantasies.

I told you multiple times that that was not the fucking point but you kept bleating about it anyway. Then you asked me at one point "What do the fantasies of the Founders have to do with me?" and I said "Absolutely nothing.". Even after this you couldn't let it go.

What does it matter how they viewed them?

Because it's an example of how the word "extralegal" applies you ignorant ass. It was merely an example to explain the meaning of "extralegal". You know, the fucking explanation you asked for.

I could have used any number of examples from any number of contexts but that was the first thing to came to mind. That's it. But because of your obsession with objectivity/subjectivity and your sensitive feelings about the Founding Fathers, you completely forgot that you asked me to explain a word for you and went off on a completely irrelevant tangent.

Its meaning to you and it's relevance remains unclear to me.

It remains unclear to you precisely because of what I just said: "...after explaining what the word meant and giving you examples of other words with the prefix "Extra-", instead of focusing on the meaning of the word you asked for and received, you instead focused on what "inalienable rights" means and lectured me on its subjectivity."
I would also add that you kept trying to make it about the Founding Fathers - "What do the Founding Slavers' fantasies have to do with me?" - after I told you every time you mentioned it that it was not about them. And you wonder why it remains unclear to you.

And? Im not arguing that Im acting out of anything but self interest.

Then why bring it up in relation to property owners if you know you're doing the same thing?

My argument isn't against self interest but against the pageantry and propaganda you all tell yourselves to avoid the self interest at the the heart of your actions. You have to pretend "trespassers" are people who are doing something objectively wrong or harmful to you even and that your violent actions against them are and defense rather than self interest.

Why should anyone else be expected to examine their self interest if you're happy to embrace yours as it is?

You're the one being emotional about it all.

Well that was totally irrelevant to what I said.

My argument, at its core, is coldly rational. I'm not using words like unfair to make my argument. That's subjective. I'm pointing out, objectively, that it's property owners removing "trespassers" who are objectively the violent aggressors and that "trespassers" objectively, are just people traversing the surface of the earth.

And my response to that is, again, so what? Why does this matter to you?

That's not a feeling you dipshit. That's called a fact. Equal rights among people during the Founders time wasnt a thing.

Your disdain for the Founding Fathers is well known. Whether fact or no, it still comes from a place of feeling.

God damn you're stupid! (this is what an expression of sentiment looks like)

Webster's defines "Sentiment" as: "an attitude, thought, or judgment prompted by feeling"

It was a yes or no question. As the question asker you can ask whatever question you like however you like. As the person answering it I'm not confined to a yes or no response unless I confine myself to one and in this case I see no reason to, nor do I desire to.

Irrelevant. You answered one yes or no question immediately and with no problem but refuse to answer the other one and even refuse to explain what you thought the question was leading you to.

Ive never tried coming on your property. I dont even know where you live.

You idiot. Your argument about going where you please was based on the simple fact that you have the physical ability to walk and move. I have the physical ability to try to stop you if you come on my property. Understand?

And? It's not my job to educate you. l

And it's not my job to educate you either but that didn't stop you from repeatedly asking me to explain the meaning of "extralegal". It certainly didn't stop you from obsessing over the Founding Fathers and inalienable rights.

And I explained why i thought that question nonsensical. Because justness isn't a real thing. Just because you ask a question doesn't mean I'm under some obligation to respect it's premise.

Why is it nonsensical to say that removing you is neither just nor unjust if justness is not a thing? Is that not a logical conclusion?

When you say there are only two proper responses do mean like according to the universe or to you, emotionally?

There are only two relevant responses to a yes or no question. And in this case, anything else sounds like deflection and evasion.

That you tried to set a trap.

You made the claim first that I denied it when I never did.

Its a different question you dipshit.

Of course it's a different question you moron. The type of response being asked for is the same: yes or no.

Why should I approach them the same?

It's not a question of should/shouldn't. But because you refuse to answer, it's a question of: Why didn't you answer? To that you said you thought it was a leading question. And so the question to that is: What did you think it was leading you to?

This is where you slammed the door on the matter by refusing to answer this question at all.

One is open about meaning which exists, subjectively, and the other is about justness which doesn't exist at all even though people imagine and wish it did.

Justness is not a meaning?

I'm not imaging. You admitted that you were trying to set a trap all along. Don't be a little bitch about now just because I sniffed you out way back when when you tried to set it. I didn't make you confirm that for me.

I told you I set a trap after you assumed I asked a leading question. Before I said that, you didn't know.

By the way, the trap was sprung anyway because there was no way to escape it and it was partly of your own making. You would have fallen into it whether you answered or not.

To answer "yes" would have voided any implied meaning about the issue of the property owner using force. To answer "no" would suggest you are in fact saying removing you is unjust which of course is subjective. To not answer at all, or even to divert attention from the question as you did, suggests you are avoiding the question altogether because of the inherent subjectivity of whatever meaning it has for you, even if that's not justness.

In short, any response was destined to betray your own subjective feelings about being removed one way or another. I can't say exactly what those feelings are but the obviousness of it is like a slap in the face.

But you did, eventually, because you're a moron who's easily played.

"Easily played"? I wasn't played into saying I set a trap, that was a deliberate choice.

You admitted it you dipshit. You admitted you tried to set some silly rehatorical trap since you didn't have an actual rational argument you wanted to make.

What does this have to do with the fact that you refuse to say where you think the question was leading you to?

So why are you trying to argue about something you don't deny?

The more important question is, why did you say I denied it when I didn't?

Ok. Is this about your feelings? Why are you throwing your feelings at me like I care?

I'm just expressing a sentiment. Are you confused what those are?

Different arguments.

Of course they're different arguments, dumbass. That's precisely my point.

One is about the inherent violent nature of property ownership itself and the other is about how taxes work in our democratic society.

To which you added the element of access to resources in that same context of private property. You added that element, not me.

Post #1059: "If I'm not getting anything out of this deal why would I be willing to relinquish my natural and innate ability to partake in these natural resources?"

Post #1061: "The premise here isn't that I also own the property and that you need to pay me as well. My premise is that the natural world objectively belongs to no one and if you want to come to some agreement with others about them agreeing not to access or use said natural resources that that is an agreement between yall. We haven't come to an agreement and you've yet to describe a compelling reason for me to agree to not partake of these natural resources."
And
"That you not respecting my natural innate freedom to go where I please requires physical force against me whereas me not respecting your legal claim to natural resources does not. That's just me agreeing to disagree with your point of view."

Post #1065: "When I say I'm not respecting your claim I'm referring to walking all over land you claim is yours and enjoying the natural bounty of its resources."

In Post #1163 you said: "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
"Private property is about keeping resources for yourself."
As you can see, we had been discussing resources in the context of private property for days but when I say you're bothered that you don't have access to my resources, you bring up the completely irrelevant point of taxes.

Did you not understand I was referring to resources on property that we had been discussing for days? If you did not then you're a fucking idiot. If you did then you were just being an obtuse prick.

Property ownership is something that can exist in many governments and contexts beyond our democratic one. My arguments about property are objectively true no matter the political context of the society they exist in and my arguments about taxes are specifically true about our society.

But you brought up access to resources in the context of private property. This is objective fact.

You said this to me regarding another matter: "Why do you seem to always forget context is a thing?" But when I said you were bothered by not having access to my resources while discussing private property, that's when you brought up taxes, a wholly separate context. We hadn't even discussed taxes yet by this point except in the context of billionaires.

That's not much of an explanation on what that even means.

Neither is "Law is force". But that's what you said in the beginning.

My argument was always about objective reality verse propaganda and make believe. You're just the only person I've had to define what I mean by force for.

Do you mean where you said "Law is force" which is just as non-explicative as you say "Law is not force" is?

So like when the law isn't being applied? Because my argument is about when it is. Must we really retread this old ground?

If you insist on ignoring the fact that it takes force for you to go where you please, yes.

Justness and unjustness aren't real things. What it is, objectively, is an aggressive use of force against someone who wasn't objectively using force against you.

But does that mean anything? If it does, what does it mean? If it doesn't, so what?

You didn't think to ask?

I DID ask. Or rather, in regards to force in law, I asked you to "...describe force in all its contexts then we can can talk about what I think law is."

You responded with: "Me and Newton already have. F=MA

Anything with mass and acceleration interacting with another object is acting with force. This is an objective fact."

To the rhetorical trap you already admitted to trying to set.

You're going in circles. That doesn't explain what you thought the trap was meant to do. What did you think I was trying to get you to say?

Because I'm too smart for your trap that I saw coming like 9 posts ago or however long ago it was.

And by avoiding giving an answer, you fell right into it anyway.

If you weren't such a slave to your convictions about subjectivism, answering the question would have been no problem for you. But by not answering, it appears there is something you're afraid to say. The irony is, if you were not afraid to say it, there would be no trap.

Well thanks for sharing those feelings but it has nothing to do with my argument.

It was the argument I made that you claimed I never made. Dumbass.

What do you mean what it means to me? You want me to share my feelings with you?

I asked the question, didn't I?

Are we friends or something?

Is that required to get your opinion on something?

Objectively, it means you're the aggressor.

So this is what it means to you? Why is this important?

Doesn't that hurt you feelings?

Why would it?

You don't but arguing against your imagined interpretation is what a strawman is.

Like you did with the remark about taxes?

I made the argument that "illegal" could be synonymous with extralegal and then provided evidence that proved it.

Let me show you a comparison between a Dictionary.com definition and that of a more established Webster's:

For the word "Justness":

Webster's

Adjective
1a : having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason : reasonable
had just reason to believe he was in danger

b : conforming to a standard of correctness : proper
just proportions

c archaic : faithful to an original

2a(1) : acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good : righteous
a just war

(2) : being what is merited : deserved
a just punishment

b : legally correct : lawful
just title to an estate

Adverb
1a : exactly, precisely
just right
b : very recently
the bell just rang

2a : by a very small margin : barely
just too late

b : immediately, directly
just west of here

3a : only, simply
just last year
just be yourself

b: quite, very
just wonderful

4 : perhaps, possibly
it just might work

And now, Dictionary.com

noun
1: the quality or state of being just, equitable, or right:
His justness was never doubted.

2: conformity to fact or rule; correctness; exactness.

That's it. This is why I don't use Dictionary.com.

As for what you mean by it and it's purpose I still don't know.

That's not my problem. I've done all I can in that regard.

Nope. I would be surprised to learn that my arguments rely on as much feeling as yours do though since I always intend for my arguments to based on objective reality.

Then why all the sarcasm when I do it?

I wasn't wrong that the slaver Founders were tyrants when you take tyrants to mean usurpers of sovereignty. If you mean that the word tyrant is itself subjective in the same way all words are can be used to mean something else then my argument wasn't about that.

Irrelevant. You disagreed with me when I said it was subjective after telling me a hundred times that words are subjective.

Well one, justness is a thing, subjectively, to libertarians and so my point originally was to show how property ownerhship is counter to this subjective sense of justice. I did this not by arguing that property ownership is actually unjust but by arguing property owners as the initial aggressors. I leave the Libertarians themselves to wrestle with the subjective moral implications of that objective truth.

Then let me ask you this: If justness is not a thing then the homeowner being the aggressor is not unjust either, correct? It doesn't mean anything and calling him the aggressor is tantamount to saying he's a Virgo.

That you keep asking about if I think i have the right shows that you dont even fully grasp my argument, even after all this. Rights arent a real thing. I don't need a right to do anything anymore than I need a golden ticket from a bald eagle to take shit in the morning. All I need are full bowels. What you need to be addressing is the subjective nature of his property. Fix your argument so it doesn't rest on a foundation of feelings.

I don't "need to be addressing" a goddamn thing but what I choose to address, just like you do. The subjectivity of property ownership was established weeks ago so there's no point rehashing that shit. What I'm doing is trying to figure out why the subjectivity of property ownership is important to you and what it means beyond the ontological realm of simply being subjective.

Property ownership is a thing and it's subjective. So what? Are you implying or saying anything beyond that? If not, why are we arguing about it?

What Im saying is that in nature there are humans and we humans live on a planet of useful resources and the attempts to keep some of these resources for ourselves under a fantasy of legal ownership is actually a manufactured system maintained by violence and threats of violence making property owners violent aggressors, inherently and objectively. Not that I myself am opposed or above these acts of aggression and violence but that they are what they are just that.

This "fantasy of legal ownership" or simply, "ownership", has been going on for millions of years. Are you expecting that to change soon?

What? Ive explained the who when, where, who and how. In the places people own property, by people who own property, when they obtained this property, by threats and uses of force.

That's hypothetical. I'm asking for specific instances in modern history where property (house and/or land) was acquired through force and violence, specifically, in this country.

I have maintained that I have never seen it and you refuse to answer those questions.

I'm happy to answer them, I just did. I even explained the science to you. See when you put your hands on someone else, that's you using force against them. When you put your hands on someone to remove them from a piece of the earth you're claiming for yourself, you're the violent aggressor, objectively. That's the argument I've been making this entire time. What do you mean you don't see it?

Again, your argument is hypothetical. I'm asking you to present evidence where this has actually happened.

What does it matter what it means to me personally? Why are you so invested in my emotions?

Why are you emotionally invested in the topic of property ownership and resources?

You don't have to infer that you dipshit since I've said, plainly, that justness isn't a thing.

Yet you refused to answer the question.

When I said: "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?"
You responded with: "Well it could mean those things subjectively but justness and injustice mean nothing objectively."
So if justness and injustice are subjective and mean nothing objectively then "wrong", "immoral", "illegal", "unfair" and "improper" being subjective, also mean nothing objectively, correct?

Yet you make a distinction here between the two; that these others might mean something subjectively. But if they're subjective like justness and injustice then can we not infer that they also mean nothing objectively? Can we not further infer from that that any other adjective means nothing objectively? To take it even further, can we not infer that removing you - even with physical force - means nothing at all?

You're confusing yourself with this silly trap my guy.

The trap was sprung the second you refused to answer the question.

One line above you were telling me how you infer that it's neither just or unjust (because justness isn't a thing) and now you're trying to weasle back to a determination of not unjust. What's with the rhetorical word games? Your trap is already blown.

As I noted above, you actually tried to make a distinction between words that have subjective meaning and a word that means nothing because it is subjective. Talk about rhetorical word games.

I'm flattered that you're so interested in my feelings but why?

Are you saying you have feelings on this? If you don't, does it matter?

We're debating different perspectives on an issue. How else am I going to get a fuller picture of your perspective if not by asking these things? Or do you not want me to have a fuller picture?

Objective meaning is objective because it's true no matter how you feel about it.

True. But does it?

Why? Why are you so thirsty for my feelings?

Why are you avoiding the question?

Whether it is his property, objectively speaking, is what is at the root of my argument. It can't objectively be self defense if the answer is no. It's violently aggressive self interest. And he isn't forced into this action, choosing to use violence to keep a piece of the earth as your own and out of the reach of others is a willful choice.

Are you saying it's not his property?

What? I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

No surprise there.

Your argument is hypothetical. By that I mean it's a devised scenario where a homeowner uses force to keep someone off his property. No problem so far. But then you say F=MA can tell us who is using force, as if we don't already know it's the hypothetical homeowner.

It serves my purpose just fine.

It serves my purpose just fine too. That is, if my only argument is that I have the physical ability to try to stop someone from coming on my property. Beyond that it serves no purpose for either of us because a scientific theory lends no credence to any meaning to use of force in any given situation.

It shows that one set of people is using force to move around and the other set of people are using force against others.

We already know that from the hypothetical scenario you came up with. Why do you need a scientific formula to tell you that the fictional character you created to use force, is using force?

Again, what? I'm not arguing in terms of justness apart from how it's unjust according to libertarian moral absolutes to be the aggressor.

sigh You accused me of imagining that you think removing you is neither just nor unjust, which was simply an inference from your comment that justness is not a thing. If justness is not a thing then does it not stand to reason that my removing you is neither just nor unjust?

No. You're trying to say that but being such an absolute bitch about it that your trying to pass it off as me. Otherwise quote me you fucking clown.

Pass what off? It was a question. If there is no justness or unjustness associated with removing you then you would not have cause to complain or say anything about it, yes?

Again, what? Ive addressed both. The person walking is using force against the surface of the earth, the person removing trespassers is using force against others and the why for both of those is self interest.

Okay. Is there a point to this or are you merely making an observation?

That property ownership is counter to libertarian moral absolutes since it requires violence and threats of violence from the onset.

Have libertarians been known to roust people from their homes? If so, I've never heard of it.

It has to do with showing what is actually being protected by a property owners use of violence to defend their claim. Self interest.

You just admitted it is self interest for both parties. Why is the homeowner's self interest of special note here?

 

[Failzero]

Spamtastic

 

[Curried Goats]

The thesaurus doesn't define words, it gives synonyms.


Because it applies equally to both the person traipsing on property and the property owner trying to stop him. It takes force to do either one.


Wrong. It started when you entered the discussion on Page 3 to counter a comment by dblack about equity and equal rights. After that, I entered the discussion on Page 24 to address a comment you made to AZrailwhale regarding the value of a worker or his labor to an employer. Later, I came back in to address a comment you made to dblack about equity and DEI. It was not long after this point when you brought your argument with dblack about property and rights into the exchange between you and me.

So no, that's not where this started.


Obviously.


What fantasy is that?

Does it matter?


I've already said that I understand property ownership is ultimately subjective so you're wasting your breath. I'm just waiting to see if you'll come to the realization that it means nothing and that subjective ownership will never change.

You said something early in the discussion about the natural, physical world - as opposed to subjective ideas, beliefs and concepts - and sharing the resources of that natural world. But you forgot something; we are a product of evolution by natural selection. This means nature and the natural world instilled in humans the instinct to keep and defend what's ours, including a home or a place to set down roots.

You say property is ultimately subjective but our instinct to defend our homes is not. Man has an ancient and innate instinct to claim territory, call it home, raise a family and defend both. This is in our DNA just as it is in the DNA of most of the fauna on this planet. It's even in the DNA of flora.

It goes all the way back to the start of life 3.5 billion years ago and the start of animal life about 600 million years ago. Animals have been fighting over territory this whole time and hominids have been doing the same for about 18 million years.

And here you come, 18 million years of survival instinct later, preaching about subjectivism like we're going to undo millions of years of instinct because you feel entitled to our apple trees.

And if you think all of this is only about preventing some idiot from accessing natural resources, you are a fucking simple minded, selfish, puling and whiny bitch. We don't just defend our homes to keep people from accessing our apple trees, we defend our homes because we have families that live there.


Every time I express anything resembling feelings you throw sarcastic barbs at me, post your idiotic laugh emojis and tell me you're not interested. But when you do the same thing and I point it out, you imply I'm confused what feelings are. Goddamn you're a hypocrite.


I thought your argument was against libertarians.


Are you now saying that ownership of ALL property is subjective, including things like jewelry, TVs, vehicles, bicycles and whatnot? Do you consider these things to be resources you should have access to? Because that's what I'm talking about when I say burglars and robbers.


What have I said that is objectively wrong?

So F=MA is irrelevant then, right?


Irrelevant. I'm arguing based on the formula you brought up. But because you did, I'm going to argue that it takes force for you to move about.


I'm not skipping ahead, I'm ignoring it because it became irrelevant the moment you brought up F=MA.


But you refuse to answer the questions as to when, where, who, how the force is being applied.


And what meaning does this have for you?


No it's not. The force is being applied by your muscles to your bones and tendons to effect movement. The force being applied to the surface of the Earth is gravity.


So? What does this mean to you?

Irrelevant. The point is that you claimed I interjected myself into your discussion with dblack when I did not. You were the one who brought that argument about libertarian beliefs to our exchange.

Yeah, you accuse me of doing the same thing you did in this thread but I'm the frail one.


Doesn't pretty much everyone have the same ideas about property? Are libertarians unique in this regard?


Yes you do.


Every time you don't want to answer a question you plaintively declare "I don't know what you mean."

So what does it mean personally to you?


Your feelings about being removed from property, yes. Was that not clear?


What arguments are those?


You would know the point if you hadn't kept harping about the subjectivity of the concept of inalienable rights after I told you several times that the rights themselves were not the fucking point. Now you're gonna bitch and whine as if I was the one who confused the issue. Jesus Christ what a moron.

I told you multiple times that that was not the fucking point but you kept bleating about it anyway. Then you asked me at one point "What do the fantasies of the Founders have to do with me?" and I said "Absolutely nothing.". Even after this you couldn't let it go.


Because it's an example of how the word "extralegal" applies you ignorant ass. It was merely an example to explain the meaning of "extralegal". You know, the fucking explanation you asked for.

I could have used any number of examples from any number of contexts but that was the first thing to came to mind. That's it. But because of your obsession with objectivity/subjectivity and your sensitive feelings about the Founding Fathers, you completely forgot that you asked me to explain a word for you and went off on a completely irrelevant tangent.

It remains unclear to you precisely because of what I just said: "...after explaining what the word meant and giving you examples of other words with the prefix "Extra-", instead of focusing on the meaning of the word you asked for and received, you instead focused on what "inalienable rights" means and lectured me on its subjectivity."
I would also add that you kept trying to make it about the Founding Fathers - "What do the Founding Slavers' fantasies have to do with me?" - after I told you every time you mentioned it that it was not about them. And you wonder why it remains unclear to you.


Then why bring it up in relation to property owners if you know you're doing the same thing?


Why should anyone else be expected to examine their self interest if you're happy to embrace yours as it is?


Well that was totally irrelevant to what I said.


And my response to that is, again, so what? Why does this matter to you?

Your disdain for the Founding Fathers is well known. Whether fact or no, it still comes from a place of feeling.


Webster's defines "Sentiment" as: "an attitude, thought, or judgment prompted by feeling"

Irrelevant. You answered one yes or no question immediately and with no problem but refuse to answer the other one and even refuse to explain what you thought the question was leading you to.


You idiot. Your argument about going where you please was based on the simple fact that you have the physical ability to walk and move. I have the physical ability to try to stop you if you come on my property. Understand?

And it's not my job to educate you either but that didn't stop you from repeatedly asking me to explain the meaning of "extralegal". It certainly didn't stop you from obsessing over the Founding Fathers and inalienable rights.


Why is it nonsensical to say that removing you is neither just nor unjust if justness is not a thing? Is that not a logical conclusion?

There are only two relevant responses to a yes or no question. And in this case, anything else sounds like deflection and evasion.


You made the claim first that I denied it when I never did.


Of course it's a different question you moron. The type of response being asked for is the same: yes or no.


It's not a question of should/shouldn't. But because you refuse to answer, it's a question of: Why didn't you answer? To that you said you thought it was a leading question. And so the question to that is: What did you think it was leading you to?

This is where you slammed the door on the matter by refusing to answer this question at all.

Justness is not a meaning?

I told you I set a trap after you assumed I asked a leading question. Before I said that, you didn't know.

By the way, the trap was sprung anyway because there was no way to escape it and it was partly of your own making. You would have fallen into it whether you answered or not.

To answer "yes" would have voided any implied meaning about the issue of the property owner using force. To answer "no" would suggest you are in fact saying removing you is unjust which of course is subjective. To not answer at all, or even to divert attention from the question as you did, suggests you are avoiding the question altogether because of the inherent subjectivity of whatever meaning it has for you, even if that's not justness.

In short, any response was destined to betray your own subjective feelings about being removed one way or another. I can't say exactly what those feelings are but the obviousness of it is like a slap in the face.

"Easily played"? I wasn't played into saying I set a trap, that was a deliberate choice.


What does this have to do with the fact that you refuse to say where you think the question was leading you to?


The more important question is, why did you say I denied it when I didn't?

I'm just expressing a sentiment. Are you confused what those are?


Of course they're different arguments, dumbass. That's precisely my point.


To which you added the element of access to resources in that same context of private property. You added that element, not me.

Post #1059: "If I'm not getting anything out of this deal why would I be willing to relinquish my natural and innate ability to partake in these natural resources?"

Post #1061: "The premise here isn't that I also own the property and that you need to pay me as well. My premise is that the natural world objectively belongs to no one and if you want to come to some agreement with others about them agreeing not to access or use said natural resources that that is an agreement between yall. We haven't come to an agreement and you've yet to describe a compelling reason for me to agree to not partake of these natural resources."
And
"That you not respecting my natural innate freedom to go where I please requires physical force against me whereas me not respecting your legal claim to natural resources does not. That's just me agreeing to disagree with your point of view."

Post #1065: "When I say I'm not respecting your claim I'm referring to walking all over land you claim is yours and enjoying the natural bounty of its resources."

In Post #1163 you said: "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
"Private property is about keeping resources for yourself."
As you can see, we had been discussing resources in the context of private property for days but when I say you're bothered that you don't have access to my resources, you bring up the completely irrelevant point of taxes.

Did you not understand I was referring to resources on property that we had been discussing for days? If you did not then you're a fucking idiot. If you did then you were just being an obtuse prick.

But you brought up access to resources in the context of private property. This is objective fact.

You said this to me regarding another matter: "Why do you seem to always forget context is a thing?" But when I said you were bothered by not having access to my resources while discussing private property, that's when you brought up taxes, a wholly separate context. We hadn't even discussed taxes yet by this point except in the context of billionaires.


Neither is "Law is force". But that's what you said in the beginning.


Do you mean where you said "Law is force" which is just as non-explicative as you say "Law is not force" is?


If you insist on ignoring the fact that it takes force for you to go where you please, yes.



But does that mean anything? If it does, what does it mean? If it doesn't, so what?


I DID ask. Or rather, in regards to force in law, I asked you to "...describe force in all its contexts then we can can talk about what I think law is."

You responded with: "Me and Newton already have. F=MA

Anything with mass and acceleration interacting with another object is acting with force. This is an objective fact."



You're going in circles. That doesn't explain what you thought the trap was meant to do. What did you think I was trying to get you to say?

And by avoiding giving an answer, you fell right into it anyway.

If you weren't such a slave to your convictions about subjectivism, answering the question would have been no problem for you. But by not answering, it appears there is something you're afraid to say. The irony is, if you were not afraid to say it, there would be no trap.


It was the argument I made that you claimed I never made. Dumbass.


I asked the question, didn't I?

Is that required to get your opinion on something?


So this is what it means to you? Why is this important?

Why would it?


Like you did with the remark about taxes?

Let me show you a comparison between a Dictionary.com definition and that of a more established Webster's:

For the word "Justness":

Webster's

Adjective
1a : having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason : reasonable
had just reason to believe he was in danger

b : conforming to a standard of correctness : proper
just proportions

c archaic : faithful to an original

2a(1) : acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good : righteous
a just war

(2) : being what is merited : deserved
a just punishment

b : legally correct : lawful
just title to an estate

Adverb
1a : exactly, precisely
just right
b : very recently
the bell just rang

2a : by a very small margin : barely
just too late

b : immediately, directly
just west of here

3a : only, simply
just last year
just be yourself

b: quite, very
just wonderful

4 : perhaps, possibly
it just might work

And now, Dictionary.com

noun
1: the quality or state of being just, equitable, or right:
His justness was never doubted.

2: conformity to fact or rule; correctness; exactness.

That's it. This is why I don't use Dictionary.com.



That's not my problem. I've done all I can in that regard.


Then why all the sarcasm when I do it?


Irrelevant. You disagreed with me when I said it was subjective after telling me a hundred times that words are subjective.


Then let me ask you this: If justness is not a thing then the homeowner being the aggressor is not unjust either, correct? It doesn't mean anything and calling him the aggressor is tantamount to saying he's a Virgo.


I don't "need to be addressing" a goddamn thing but what I choose to address, just like you do. The subjectivity of property ownership was established weeks ago so there's no point rehashing that shit. What I'm doing is trying to figure out why the subjectivity of property ownership is important to you and what it means beyond the ontological realm of simply being subjective.

Property ownership is a thing and it's subjective. So what? Are you implying or saying anything beyond that? If not, why are we arguing about it?


This "fantasy of legal ownership" or simply, "ownership", has been going on for millions of years. Are you expecting that to change soon?


That's hypothetical. I'm asking for specific instances in modern history where property (house and/or land) was acquired through force and violence, specifically, in this country.

I have maintained that I have never seen it and you refuse to answer those questions.


Again, your argument is hypothetical. I'm asking you to present evidence where this has actually happened.


Why are you emotionally invested in the topic of property ownership and resources?

Yet you refused to answer the question.

When I said: "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?"
You responded with: "Well it could mean those things subjectively but justness and injustice mean nothing objectively."
So if justness and injustice are subjective and mean nothing objectively then "wrong", "immoral", "illegal", "unfair" and "improper" being subjective, also mean nothing objectively, correct?

Yet you make a distinction here between the two; that these others might mean something subjectively. But if they're subjective like justness and injustice then can we not infer that they also mean nothing objectively? Can we not further infer from that that any other adjective means nothing objectively? To take it even further, can we not infer that removing you - even with physical force - means nothing at all?


The trap was sprung the second you refused to answer the question.

As I noted above, you actually tried to make a distinction between words that have subjective meaning and a word that means nothing because it is subjective. Talk about rhetorical word games.

Are you saying you have feelings on this? If you don't, does it matter?

We're debating different perspectives on an issue. How else am I going to get a fuller picture of your perspective if not by asking these things? Or do you not want me to have a fuller picture?


True. But does it?


Why are you avoiding the question?


Are you saying it's not his property?


No surprise there.

Your argument is hypothetical. By that I mean it's a devised scenario where a homeowner uses force to keep someone off his property. No problem so far. But then you say F=MA can tell us who is using force, as if we don't already know it's the hypothetical homeowner.


It serves my purpose just fine too. That is, if my only argument is that I have the physical ability to try to stop someone from coming on my property. Beyond that it serves no purpose for either of us because a scientific theory lends no credence to any meaning to use of force in any given situation.


We already know that from the hypothetical scenario you came up with. Why do you need a scientific formula to tell you that the fictional character you created to use force, is using force?


sigh You accused me of imagining that you think removing you is neither just nor unjust, which was simply an inference from your comment that justness is not a thing. If justness is not a thing then does it not stand to reason that my removing you is neither just nor unjust?

Pass what off? It was a question. If there is no justness or unjustness associated with removing you then you would not have cause to complain or say anything about it, yes?


Okay. Is there a point to this or are you merely making an observation?

Have libertarians been known to roust people from their homes? If so, I've never heard of it.

You just admitted it is self interest for both parties. Why is the homeowner's self interest of special note here?

My god. You work really hard to miss a simple point I've tried repeatedly to explain to you. I don't care if you use physics in whatever your argument is. Use whatever you want my guy. Make whatever argument with it you want. You keep asking me what my point is for bringing up the objective fact that homeowners removing "tresspassers" makes them the aggressors and I keep telling you it's because being the violent aggressor is supposed to be contrary to the libertarian moral beliefs of people like dblack.

As for your point about human evolution, that's fine. I understand we evolved to selfishly seek resources for own survival and benefit, that's an objective statement I have no problem with. When you characterize yourself as defending your property that argument I take intellectual issue with because you've already conceded that nothing is really your property, objectively speaking. It's a statement of fantasy and make believe. You aren't defending your property in any objective sense. You're aggressively pursuing your own self interest. Just don't be a little bitch about and tell these little tales of defense like anyone in this scenario was actually attacking you.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

My god. You work really hard to miss a simple point I've tried repeatedly to explain to you. I don't care if you use physics in whatever your argument is. Use whatever you want my guy. Make whatever argument with it you want. You keep asking me what my point is for bringing up the objective fact that homeowners removing "tresspassers" makes them the aggressors and I keep telling you it's because being the violent aggressor is supposed to be contrary to the libertarian moral beliefs of people like dblack.

One question: Why did you bring your argument with dblack to our exchange that initially had nothing to do with property or libertarian beliefs? The topic of the thread was equity and equality and DEI. How the fuck did you manage to get private property, violence and resources out of that?

As for your point about human evolution, that's fine. I understand we evolved to selfishly seek resources for own survival and benefit, that's an objective statement I have no problem with. When you characterize yourself as defending your property that argument I take intellectual issue with because you've already conceded that nothing is really your property, objectively speaking. It's a statement of fantasy and make believe. You aren't defending your property in any objective sense. You're aggressively pursuing your own self interest. Just don't be a little bitch about and tell these little tales of defense like anyone in this scenario was actually attacking you.

Nobody was attacking you either but you brought up the issue of homeowners attacking to defend their property in a thread about equity and equality.

I didn't bring up this nonsense about defending property, you did. Now you're going to call me a little bitch for responding to a topic you brought up and bitched about.

This whole thing is on you. The argument about private property, force and resources and all the rest was yours. All I did was respond to it.

God what a self centered hypocritical prick.

 

[Curried Goats]

One question: Why did you bring your argument with dblack to our exchange that initially had nothing to do with property or libertarian beliefs? The topic of the thread was equity and equality and DEI. How the fuck did you manage to get private property, violence and resources out of that?

First, it did. This conversation grew out of something I said to dblack about equality and rights. I asked him that question specifically because I know he's a libertarian and what libertarian philosophy is on equality and rights.

Nobody was attacking you either but you brought up the issue of homeowners attacking to defend their property in a thread about equity and equality.

I questioned if attacking people to assert claims over property was objectively an act of self defense and whether property ownership and capitalism inherently sets up a system of inequality to begin with.

I didn't bring up this nonsense about defending property, you did. Now you're going to call me a little bitch for responding to a topic you brought up and bitched about.

Because you're making it about my feelings on an imaginary thing called injustice and my question is about objective reality. I don't care about your feelings or how deeply invested in mine you are.

This whole thing is on you. The argument about private property, force and resources and all the rest was yours. All I did was respond to it.

God what a self centered hypocritical prick.

Mine is an intellectual question about objective reality that relates to the topic and your whole thing is about your feelings and mine. Have a little self awareness you fucking Clown.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Kameltoe who? She's finished

 

[Curried Goats]

Kameltoe who? She's finished

You're the one who mentioned it.....


Guys, it's okay to have opinions and fantasies and feelings. It's just weird when you pretend they belong to someone else....

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You're the one who mentioned it.....


Guys, it's okay to have opinions and fantasies and feelings. It's just weird when you pretend they belong to someone else....

Wtf are you actually trying convey here?

Resume the fetal position as the United States begins recovering

 

[Curried Goats]

Wtf are you actually trying convey here?

Resume the fetal position as the United States begins recovering

I'm relaying the fact that you mentioned kameltoe out of nowhere and then pretended like she was finished when she's clearly at the forefront of your imagination and fantasies. How are you that inept at understanding context?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I'm relaying the fact that you mentioned kameltoe out of nowhere and then pretended like she was finished when she's clearly at the forefront of your imagination and fantasies. How are you that inept at understanding context?

The thread is about Harris ya fckn dumbass