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

[Curried Goats]

The thread is about Harris ya fckn dumbass

And like I said, feel free to express opinions about her but pretending as if she's going anywhere as you fantasize about her Kameltoe is just weird and funny.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

First, it did.

No, it did not, not between you and me. My comment to you pertained to a comment you made to AZrailwhale regarding value of labor/laborer to an employer.

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.

I don't care. It still had nothing to do with what I said to you and it had nothing to do with the topic of the thread: equity and equality.

I'm not criticizing you for wandering off into property, resources and self defense. This sort of thing happens in almost every discussion and I've done it myself. I'm criticizing you for laughing at me for supposedly interjecting myself into your discussion between dblack and yourself when I did not and because you interjected yourself long before I did.
I'm also criticizing you for calling me a whiny bitch for countering aspects of your whiny argument with dblack that you brought up with me.

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.

Irrelevant. You made a snide remark that I was bitching about defending my property as if "...anyone in this scenario was actually attacking you." But you are the one who brought up defending property as if dblack was attacking you for being on his property.

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.

First of all, wrong. Initially, I asked you if removing you had ANY kind of significance for you. A question you refused to answer. Second, it was later when I asked you if you were SAYING removing you is unjust. I did not ask if you feel it is unjust. I never said a thing about feelings, you did.

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.

Wrong. As I noted above, you brought up feelings, not me. This is another thing I'm criticizing you for; sarcasm and disdain about feelings and opinions when you've been doing the same fucking thing throughout this entire discussion.

Here's just a handful of quotes by you of opinions and judgments based on feelings:

* "Its about preventing monopolies of resources. I happen to think it's a bad thing." (this is the quote I referred to earlier but I misremembered it as being about childhood poverty)"

Subjective opinion.

* "we should all be able to prosper together and feed our families and buy homes and send our kids to college without having to consider selling your organs on the black market to do it."

Subjective opinion and judgment.

* "I blame us for not regulating it (capitalism) better."

Opinion and "better" is subjective.

* "Because I want it to alleviate the worst outcomes and mitigate the ability of people to own too many of our natural resources."

"worst outcomes" and "too many" both being subjective.

I love these last two:

*"We can blame ****** for as long as they refuse to provide Black Americans the economic justice they deserve for the economic injustice they suffered through and continue to suffer through."

* "I'm suggesting a justice for that injustice."

Not only are these subjective opinions based on feelings, they contradict your declaration that justness is not a thing.

Before you say it, no, justness and justice are not two different things and they share the same Latin root word: "Justus".

Have a little self awareness you fucking Clown.

 

[Curried Goats]

No, it did not, not between you and me. My comment to you pertained to a comment you made to AZrailwhale regarding value of labor/laborer to an employer.

And you lost that discussion. It ended with you saying "meh" after AZ showed he and I understood each other just fine and that you were complaining about your own shit that had nothing to do with the argument between me and him. This discussion came after when I made a post to dblack about equality and rights in Post #653 that you quoted and responded to in post #673.

I don't care. It still had nothing to do with what I said to you and it had nothing to do with the topic of the thread: equity and equality.

You do care. There's page after page for evidence about how much you care about my discussions with other people.

I'm not criticizing you for wandering off into property, resources and self defense.

I wouldn't care if you did. The topic is equity and equality, it relates.

This sort of thing happens in almost every discussion and I've done it myself. I'm criticizing you for laughing at me for supposedly interjecting myself into your discussion between dblack and yourself when I did not and because you interjected yourself long before I did.

I don't really care if you interject. It's when you do and try to make it about your shit rather than what I was actually talking about that I find amusing and curious.

I'm also criticizing you for calling me a whiny bitch for countering aspects of your whiny argument with dblack that you brought up with me.

You're not countering any arguments. You're asking me about my feelings ad nauseam. What objective argument of mine have you actually countered?

Irrelevant. You made a snide remark that I was bitching about defending my property as if "...anyone in this scenario was actually attacking you." But you are the one who brought up defending property as if dblack was attacking you for being on his property.

You clown, I'm making the argument that claiming ownership over something is itself an aggressive threat of violence and force. You're saying to everyone else, inherently, that this here is mine and that access to it goes through you.

First of all, wrong. Initially, I asked you if removing you had ANY kind of significance for you. A question you refused to answer.

I don't understand the purpose of the question but I did answer, regardless. I said it has significance to my displacement in time and space and subjectively to me. What's the point of the question? Are you trying to build some sort of objective argument out of it?

Second, it was later when I asked you if you were SAYING removing you is unjust. I did not ask if you feel it is unjust. I never said a thing about feelings, you did.

Why would you ask if I'm saying that when I said justness is imaginary and not a real thing? When I gave you that answer you demanded a yes or no because your purpose was to set up a rhetorical trap rather than making an actual sound argument.

Wrong. As I noted above, you brought up feelings, not me. This is another thing I'm criticizing you for; sarcasm and disdain about feelings and opinions when you've been doing the same fucking thing throughout this entire discussion.

Here's just a handful of quotes by you of opinions and judgments based on feelings:

* "Its about preventing monopolies of resources. I happen to think it's a bad thing." (this is the quote I referred to earlier but I misremembered it as being about childhood poverty)"

Subjective opinion.

* "we should all be able to prosper together and feed our families and buy homes and send our kids to college without having to consider selling your organs on the black market to do it."

Subjective opinion and judgment.

* "I blame us for not regulating it (capitalism) better."

Opinion and "better" is subjective.

* "Because I want it to alleviate the worst outcomes and mitigate the ability of people to own too many of our natural resources."

"worst outcomes" and "too many" both being subjective.

I love these last two:

*"We can blame ****** for as long as they refuse to provide Black Americans the economic justice they deserve for the economic injustice they suffered through and continue to suffer through."

* "I'm suggesting a justice for that injustice."

Not only are these subjective opinions based on feelings, they contradict your declaration that justness is not a thing.

You and others asked me for those opinions so I shared them. I don't care about your feelings.

Before you say it, no, justness and justice are not two different things and they share the same Latin root word: "Justus".

Have a little self awareness you fucking Clown.

Why don't you? I don't believe the rules of basketball are objectively real either but I still shout foul when a player on my team goes for a shot and gets touched. Those comments were made in different contexts. If you want to ask me about the objective reality of injustness then you'll get one answer. If you want to ask whether segregation was a foul in this subjective economic game we invented then my opinion is yes.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

And you lost that discussion. It ended with you saying "meh" after AZ showed he and I understood each other just fine and that you were complaining about your own shit that had nothing to do with the argument between me and him.

Whether I won or lost is irrelevant. You made it a point that I interjected your discussion with dblack after you interjected dblack's exchange with Winston.

This discussion came after when I made a post to dblack about equality and rights in Post #653 that you quoted and responded to in post #673.

Which had nothing to do with property, self defense or resources.

You do care. There's page after page for evidence about how much you care about my discussions with other people.

There's page after page of a discussion between you and me and our discussion initially had nothing to do with libertarian beliefs until you started claiming that it was.

I wouldn't care if you did. The topic is equity and equality, it relates.

No it doesn't. As you say, the topic was about equity and equality and what those two terms mean in relation to each other within the context of our current culture - equal opportunity/rights vs. equal outcomes. Your comments about there not having been equality for all in the past is irrelevant to that point.

I don't really care if you interject.

Then why did you keep bitching about it?

It's when you do and try to make it about your shit rather than what I was actually talking about that I find amusing and curious.

Like when you made it about your shit with dblack?

You're not countering any arguments.

Yes, I am. You're confusing countering arguments with proving you wrong. I never claimed that you were wrong. But they were counter arguments nonetheless.

My arguments were more along the line of offering additional facts and considerations within the context of your arguments and trying to establish clarification of what you meant. This is why I pressed you on what "force" meant and why I kept asking you what significance any of it had for you.

You're asking me about my feelings ad nauseam.

I never asked you about your feelings, dumbass. I asked you what significance some of your arguments had for you.

What objective argument of mine have you actually countered?

I never countered any objective arguments. I countered what you thought was objective but was really not. "Law is force" was one of the ones I countered.

You clown, I'm making the argument that claiming ownership over something is itself an aggressive threat of violence and force. You're saying to everyone else, inherently, that this here is mine and that access to it goes through you.

And I told you that I acquired my property without force or violence and when asked, you refused (or were unable) to give any examples of this happening in modern times.

I don't understand the purpose of the question but I did answer, regardless.

No, you didn't.

I said it has significance to my displacement in time and space and subjectively to me.

What a crock of pseudo-metaphysical malarkey.

What's the point of the question? Are you trying to build some sort of objective argument out of it?

Why does this question vex you so?

Why would you ask if I'm saying that when I said justness is imaginary and not a real thing? When I gave you that answer you demanded a yes or no because your purpose was to set up a rhetorical trap rather than making an actual sound argument.

Irrelevant. The point is, I didn't say anything about feelings, you did. Also, you didn't say justness was not a thing until after I asked the question. And, you still haven't answered the question as to what you thought I was trying to get you to say.

You and others asked me for those opinions so I shared them. I don't care about your feelings.

This is patently false. These comments were unsolicited replies to other comments, not answers to questions. At least not in my case.

There's nothing wrong with any of this, it just makes you look like a hypocritical douchebag to bitch about opinions when you give them yourself.

Why don't you?

Why don't I what?

I don't believe the rules of basketball are objectively real either but I still shout foul when a player on my team goes for a shot and gets touched.

What?

Those comments were made in different contexts.

And? They are still opinions.

You seem to have a problem with others offering opinions or even asking you for yours but you have no problem offering them when they're not asked for and then bitching when they do the same.

If you want to ask me about the objective reality of injustness then you'll get one answer.

I never asked this question.

If you want to ask whether segregation was a foul in this subjective economic game we invented then my opinion is yes.

I didn't ask that question either.

 

[Curried Goats]

Whether I won or lost is irrelevant. You made it a point that I interjected your discussion with dblack after you interjected dblack's exchange with Winston.


Which had nothing to do with property, self defense or resources.

Sure it did.

There's page after page of a discussion between you and me and our discussion initially had nothing to do with libertarian beliefs until you started claiming that it was.

You interrupted a discussion I was having with someone else to question me on one of my arguments in that discussion so my arguments from that discussion continued on in this one. What is confusing you? My argument didn't change just because the person asking me about it did.

No it doesn't. As you say, the topic was about equity and equality and what those two terms mean in relation to each other within the context of our current culture - equal opportunity/rights vs. equal outcomes. Your comments about there not having been equality for all in the past is irrelevant to that point.

My arguments were ultimately about the difference between objective measurements of equality vs. subjective ones. Equal rights and opportunity are subjective ones.

Then why did you keep bitching about it?


Like when you made it about your shit with dblack?


Yes, I am. You're confusing countering arguments with proving you wrong. I never claimed that you were wrong. But they were counter arguments nonetheless.

What? A counter argument is an argument in opposition. I have no idea what you mean when you say you made a counter argument but weren't saying I was wrong.

My arguments were more along the line of offering additional facts and considerations within the context of your arguments and trying to establish clarification of what you meant. This is why I pressed you on what "force" meant and why I kept asking you what significance any of it had for you.

You ask me and then you disregard my response. That's the problem. I'm happy to tell you what force means. I mean it in the way it's meant in physics. Objectively. When someone or something exerts a force that can be mathematically described with a calculation showing the resulting disturbance to your mass. And it's meaningful to my argument because this measurement is objective rather than subjective.

I never asked you about your feelings, dumbass. I asked you what significance some of your arguments had for you.

That sounds like a feelings question to me. Beyond a question of true or false what else is there but you asking about feelings?

I never countered any objective arguments. I countered what you thought was objective but was really not. "Law is force" was one of the ones I countered.

Did you counter it? Where? You repeating the law isn't force isn't really so much a counter argument as it is a counter affirmation. When I saw the law is force I saying when the law puts hands on you. If you want to make an objective counter argument to that then tell me exactly how putting your hands on someone is not an exhibition of force.

And I told you that I acquired my property without force or violence and when asked, you refused (or were unable) to give any examples of this happening in modern times.

People acquired this land by force and then formed a government around it that allows you to purchase property under its rule of law. The violence comes at the violation of this rule of law.

No, you didn't.


What a crock of pseudo-metaphysical malarkey.

Nope. F = MA is physics. You or the law putting your hands on someone can be calculated. A right can't be. One is objectively real and the other is entirely imaginary.

Why does this question vex you so?

See. Another feeling question.

Irrelevant. The point is, I didn't say anything about feelings, you did. Also, you didn't say justness was not a thing until after I asked the question. And, you still haven't answered the question as to what you thought I was trying to get you to say.

Why would I say anything about justness until you bring it up? I wasn't talking about it.

This is patently false. These comments were unsolicited replies to other comments, not answers to questions. At least not in my case.

There's nothing wrong with any of this, it just makes you look like a hypocritical douchebag to bitch about opinions when you give them yourself.

I give them when asked and I don't mistake feelings for objective arguments.

Why don't I what?


What?


And? They are still opinions.

You seem to have a problem with others offering opinions or even asking you for yours but you have no problem offering them when they're not asked for and then bitching when they do the same.

I just don't care about your feelings.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Sure it did.

No, it didn’t. It was about the value of a person’s labor.

You interrupted a discussion I was having with someone else to question me on one of my arguments in that discussion so my arguments from that discussion continued on in this one. What is confusing you? My argument didn't change just because the person asking me about it did.

I’m not confused at all about the argument I addressed. I didn’t address any of those arguments; I addressed your comment about a worker’s value. Specifically, what I saw as your misconstruction of his remarks.

My arguments were ultimately about the difference between objective measurements of equality vs. subjective ones. Equal rights and opportunity are subjective ones.

But you’ve already said numerous times that rights themselves are subjective.

What? A counter argument is an argument in opposition. I have no idea what you mean when you say you made a counter argument but weren't saying I was wrong.

Of course you don’t.

You ask me and then you disregard my response. That's the problem. I'm happy to tell you what force means. I mean it in the way it's meant in physics. Objectively. When someone or something exerts a force that can be mathematically described with a calculation showing the resulting disturbance to your mass. And it's meaningful to my argument because this measurement is objective rather than subjective.

And why is that important enough to spend months talking about it? It takes force to remove someone from one’s property. So what?

If F=MA is all you’re talking about then you might as well say it takes force to push a shopping cart.

That sounds like a feelings question to me. Beyond a question of true or false what else is there but you asking about feelings?

Why do you have a problem with questions about opinions when you express them all the time?

Did you counter it? Where? You repeating the law isn't force isn't really so much a counter argument as it is a counter affirmation. When I saw the law is force I saying when the law puts hands on you. If you want to make an objective counter argument to that then tell me exactly how putting your hands on someone is not an exhibition of force.

Nope. That’s not what you said at the beginning.

Use of force is always a choice. Therefore, it doesn’t even apply in your second feeble argument where physical force is used.

This is what is known as…wait for it…a counter argument.

People acquired this land by force and then formed a government around it that allows you to purchase property under its rule of law. The violence comes at the violation of this rule of law.

You said property is acquired through force so I asked where this is the case today and you have failed to produce any evidence of this.

Nope. F = MA is physics. You or the law putting your hands on someone can be calculated.

That’s not what the question asked about.

A right can't be. One is objectively real and the other is entirely imaginary.

You mean like law having hands is imaginary?

See. Another feeling question.

“What's the point of the question? Are you trying to build some sort of objective argument out of it?”

A question that seems to vex you.

Why would I say anything about justness until you bring it up? I wasn't talking about it.

That’s why I asked the question, dumbass.

Everything about this discussion suggests to me that this means more to you than just objectivism-vs.-subjectivism or that it takes physical force to remove someone from your property like it takes force to push a shopping cart. This is why I keep asking the question but you keep dancing around it with your subjectivism rhetoric.

I give them when asked and I don't mistake feelings for objective arguments.

Holy shit. You don’t give opinions when asked you fucking liar. You give them without solicitation and then when one is solicited, you bitch about it and say things like:

“That sounds like a feelings question to me.”

or

“See. Another feeling question.”

Which you just said in your last post.

I just don't care about your feelings.

But you’ll offer your own opinions without being asked, right?

 

[Curried Goats]

No, it didn’t. It was about the value of a person’s labor.

That wasn't the conversation with dblack. That was the first discussion of mine that you interrupted and got clowned on.

I’m not confused at all about the argument I addressed. I didn’t address any of those arguments; I addressed your comment about a worker’s value. Specifically, what I saw as your misconstruction of his remarks.

And you got embarrassed in that comversation when the person I was speaking with (not dblack) used the word value in the same way I did while you were claiming confusion. Your own confusion.

But you’ve already said numerous times that rights themselves are subjective.

And? The conversation you interrupted with dblack is where I began to question whether any of you understood the difference between the objective and subjective in this thread with regards to rights and equity.

Of course you don’t.

I'm happy to admit where I'm confused by your point. The objective there is to get you to clarify your point rather than making one up for you as you do.

And why is that important enough to spend months talking about it? It takes force to remove someone from one’s property. So what?

Force is objective, rights are subjective. That was my point. I don't know why you spent months confused by it. I know what my argument was.

If F=MA is all you’re talking about then you might as well say it takes force to push a shopping cart.

It also takes force to create and maintain private property. I was talking about that instead of shopping carts. If you want to talk about shopping carts, be my guest. I don't.

Why do you have a problem with questions about opinions when you express them all the time?

I express them, I don't solicit them. My feelings I'm happy to express, I don't care about yours.

Nope. That’s not what you said at the beginning.

Use of force is always a choice. Therefore, it doesn’t even apply in your second feeble argument where physical force is used.

There's what I said and then there's what you think that meant. It wasn't about when people choose not to enforce property rights, it's about when they do. It's the establishing and maintaining of private property I'm talking about, not the abandoning of it. Remember, rights are subjective. When you ask me what the point of continually mentioning that is it's this. The establishment and maintenence of subjective property rights requires objective acts of force. If you don't want to force some subjective notion about what property or resources you have a right to then I'm not talking about that.

This is what is known as…wait for it…a counter argument.

It's you making up things my argument has nothing to do with and isn't about and pretending as if it's addressing the issue. My argument is about the subjectivity of rights verse the objective uses of force used to establish and maintain them. Not the absence of rights. If you aren't trying to establish your right to something then my argument isn't about that. It's about when you do.

You said property is acquired through force so I asked where this is the case today and you have failed to produce any evidence of this.

I said it's acquired and maintained by force and before you go confusing what that means allow me to explain.

In the beginning there is land. To aquire the private rights to said land if people are on it requires force. To maintain your right to it for others who may wish to access it and it's resources for themselves, also requires force.

Famously, there were a lot of people on this land previously, let's call them indigenous, you know, just at random. And then along came people from another land, let's call them colonizers, who removed those people, established this land for themselves and then grew this society around it. Now that society has a government and people who they call law enforcement who you know enforce the law. Including laws that say such and such has a right to such and such property.

All caught up?

That’s not what the question asked about.

No but that is what my argument is about. Why are you bothering me with your own thing instead of addressing what I'm talking about? I don't care about your thing where no one is doing anything. It's uninteresting.

You mean like law having hands is imaginary?

I can't help it if you're so stupid you took that literally.

“What's the point of the question? Are you trying to build some sort of objective argument out of it?”

A question that seems to vex you.

That's called confusion. See the question mark at the end? Why are you wasting my time with your fantasies about what I'm feeling? I was trying to ascertain whether you had an objective argument to make.

That’s why I asked the question, dumbass.

And I gave you an answer. I can't help it that it didn't satisfy you but it's the one I got for you.

Everything about this discussion suggests to me that this means more to you than just objectivism-vs.-subjectivism or that it takes physical force to remove someone from your property like it takes force to push a shopping cart. This is why I keep asking the question but you keep dancing around it with your subjectivism rhetoric.

And I'm amused at how caught up you are in my emotions. Why are you so thirsty for feelings?

Holy shit. You don’t give opinions when asked you fucking liar. You give them without solicitation and then when one is solicited, you bitch about it and say things like:

“That sounds like a feelings question to me.”

or

“See. Another feeling question.”

Which you just said in your last post.

Yes. Because I express the feelings that I want to, not the feelings you want me to. Maybe the problem is you imagining more servility than exists within me.

But you’ll offer your own opinions without being asked, right?

Whenever the fuck I feel like. Yes.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That wasn't the conversation with dblack. That was the first discussion of mine that you interrupted and got clowned on.

Like you interrupted dblack’s discussion, right?

And you got embarrassed in that comversation when the person I was speaking with (not dblack) used the word value in the same way I did while you were claiming confusion. Your own confusion.

I claimed confusion? When did I do that?

And? The conversation you interrupted with dblack is where I began to question whether any of you understood the difference between the objective and subjective in this thread with regards to rights and equity.

Irrelevant. I was not addressing that. I was addressing a specific comment where you assumed that dblack and others believe everyone always had equal right to capital and participation in society.

You inferred (incorrectly and presumptively) from dblack’s comment - “We need to decide - equal rights or equity. We can't have both.” - that he maintains a particular belief about the history of equal rights when nothing he said suggested that.

Furthermore, that comment was not even addressed to you, nor was it a reply to a comment by you. But you go right ahead and keep bitching about interruptions.

I'm happy to admit where I'm confused by your point. The objective there is to get you to clarify your point rather than making one up for you as you do.

Which you then claim you still don’t understand after three attempts.

Force is objective, rights are subjective. That was my point. I don't know why you spent months confused by it. I know what my argument was.

I’m not confused about one being subjective and the other being objective and I don’t care that they are. I’m confused as to why you think this is important enough to preach about it for months. It’s the reason I kept asking you why it is significant.

It also takes force to create and maintain private property. I was talking about that instead of shopping carts. If you want to talk about shopping carts, be my guest. I don't.

I don’t either. But you’re the one who brought up F=MA so pushing shopping carts is just as pertinent.

But anyway, so it takes objective force to maintain property. So what?

I express them, I don't solicit them. My feelings I'm happy to express, I don't care about yours.

That’s not what I asked. I asked why you have a problem with being asked for your opinion when you express them all the time without being asked.

Your views on bringing feelings and opinions to a discussion are contradictory at best. At worst they are hypocritical.

There's what I said and then there's what you think that meant. It wasn't about when people choose not to enforce property rights, it's about when they do. It's the establishing and maintaining of private property I'm talking about, not the abandoning of it. Remember, rights are subjective. When you ask me what the point of continually mentioning that is it's this. The establishment and maintenence of subjective property rights requires objective acts of force. If you don't want to force some subjective notion about what property or resources you have a right to then I'm not talking about that.

And why does any of this matter?

It's you making up things my argument has nothing to do with and isn't about and pretending as if it's addressing the issue. My argument is about the subjectivity of rights verse the objective uses of force used to establish and maintain them. Not the absence of rights. If you aren't trying to establish your right to something then my argument isn't about that. It's about when you do.

Like I asked before: Why does this matter?

I said it's acquired and maintained by force and before you go confusing what that means allow me to explain.

In the beginning there is land. To aquire the private rights to said land if people are on it requires force. To maintain your right to it for others who may wish to access it and it's resources for themselves, also requires force.

Famously, there were a lot of people on this land previously, let's call them indigenous, you know, just at random. And then along came people from another land, let's call them colonizers, who removed those people, established this land for themselves and then grew this society around it. Now that society has a government and people who they call law enforcement who you know enforce the law. Including laws that say such and such has a right to such and such property.

All caught up?

That depends on whether or not you’re prepared to answer the question as to how this is significant to you.

No but that is what my argument is about. Why are you bothering me with your own thing instead of addressing what I'm talking about? I don't care about your thing where no one is doing anything. It's uninteresting.

Why are you bothering me with your own thing if you refuse to say why your argument matters?

You just keep blathering about subjectivism and objectivism regarding property but I’m confused as to what you expect me to do with it.

I’m not going to change the.way I view my property or my views about resources or protecting them.

I can't help it if you're so stupid you took that literally.

I didn’t take it literally, dumbass. You’re the one who brought up objective-vs-imaginary but then you use a metaphor.

That's called confusion. See the question mark at the end? Why are you wasting my time with your fantasies about what I'm feeling? I was trying to ascertain whether you had an objective argument to make.

If you you’re going to offer unsolicted opinions then what difference does it make whether my question is an objective argument or not?

And I gave you an answer. I can't help it that it didn't satisfy you but it's the one I got for you.

Irrelevant. I didn’t ask the question because I thought you brought up justness, I asked the question because I suspected it was what you were thinking.

Given that you refused to answer the question, I still do.

And I'm amused at how caught up you are in my emotions. Why are you so thirsty for feelings?

Why do you have no problem expressing feelings when not asked but when asked, suddenly feelings are a problem? What is that about?

Yes. Because I express the feelings that I want to, not the feelings you want me to. Maybe the problem is you imagining more servility than exists within me.

Bullshit. This is not about my question regarding justness, this is about the inherent contradiction between your expressing feelings and railing against the discussion of feelings.

Is this even about feelings at all? Because I can’t reconcile your harangues against discussing feelings with your discussing feelings. It makes no goddamn sense.

Whenever the fuck I feel like. Yes.

While whining about feelings at the same time.

 

[Curried Goats]

Like you interrupted dblack’s discussion, right?


I claimed confusion? When did I do that?


Irrelevant. I was not addressing that. I was addressing a specific comment where you assumed that dblack and others believe everyone always had equal right to capital and participation in society.

How do I confuse you so much that you start crying about all this other shit? It's not the butting of yourself into other conversations that I have a problem with. It's you butting into conversations and confusing yourself or butting into conversations to tell those people what their argument is about, instead of asking them if you don't know, that I find funny. I'm laughing at you for jumping into conversations you're unprepared for.

And in that first conversation you confused yourself over the meaning of value as me and that other poster and I continued carrying on our conversation with no confusion whatsoever.

You inferred (incorrectly and presumptively) from dblack’s comment - “We need to decide - equal rights or equity. We can't have both.” - that he maintains a particular belief about the history of equal rights when nothing he said suggested that.

I'm inferring there (correctly) that he's talking about having equal amounts of an imaginary thing because rights are imaginary and made up.

Furthermore, that comment was not even addressed to you, nor was it a reply to a comment by you. But you go right ahead and keep bitching about interruptions.

I'm not confused by what dblack argument was.

Which you then claim you still don’t understand after three attempts.

And I still don't. I'm also not embarrassed to admit when I'm still confused.

I’m not confused about one being subjective and the other being objective and I don’t care that they are. I’m confused as to why you think this is important enough to preach about it for months. It’s the reason I kept asking you why it is significant.

If you're going to interrupt my conversation to express confusion or disagreement I'll stop to laugh at you.

I don’t either. But you’re the one who brought up F=MA so pushing shopping carts is just as pertinent.

Pertinent to what? I know why this is pertinent to my argument. Property rights are made up but the force against others used to create and maintain them are very real. What's pertinent about shopping carts to you?

But anyway, so it takes objective force to maintain property. So what?

So property rights are made up and force is real. My point to the libertarian is that if you're against putting hands on people for purposes other than self defense then you've already failed by attempting to establish property rights.

That’s not what I asked. I asked why you have a problem with being asked for your opinion when you express them all the time without being asked.

I don't have a problem, I have amusement at you trying to get into my feelings when my argument is an objective one. Your thirst is funny to me.

Your views on bringing feelings and opinions to a discussion are contradictory at best. At worst they are hypocritical.

Are they? Just because I care about my feelings doesn't mean I have to care about yours.

And why does any of this matter?

I don't know why it matters to you but I find libertarians, who believe that force against others is unjust except in self defense, to be absolutely hilarious in how oblivious they are to the presence of force in the creation and maintenance of property rights, one of the rights they are absolutely big on.

Like I asked before: Why does this matter?

I just told you.

That depends on whether or not you’re prepared to answer the question as to how this is significant to you.

I did. I said it has significance to my displacement in time and space. If you want something more significant than that you're going to have be more specific about what you're asking me for.

Why are you bothering me with your own thing if you refuse to say why your argument matters?

Am I bothering you? Then why do you keep responding to me? I respond to you because you amuse me.

You just keep blathering about subjectivism and objectivism regarding property but I’m confused as to what you expect me to do with it.

I don't expect anything from you and I don't care what you do with it. I'm not forcing you to keep responding.

I’m not going to change the.way I view my property or my views about resources or protecting them.

I don't care what you do with yourself. I only care whether you can find fault with my argument.

I didn’t take it literally, dumbass. You’re the one who brought up objective-vs-imaginary but then you use a metaphor.

And? What's wrong with me using metaphors?

If you you’re going to offer unsolicted opinions then what difference does it make whether my question is an objective argument or not?

Mine isn't an opinion. Its not my opinion that property rights can only be created and maintained through force, it's a simple logical fact. Ideas about made up things like property rights are opinions. My comments about the uses of force necessary to establish and maintain them are objectively true.

Irrelevant. I didn’t ask the question because I thought you brought up justness, I asked the question because I suspected it was what you were thinking.

Your thirst for fantasizing about me while flattering is also a little weird.

Given that you refused to answer the question, I still do.

I did answer the question. That you don't want to accept that I did is just a testament to how thirsty you are. You're practically parched.

Why do you have no problem expressing feelings when not asked but when asked, suddenly feelings are a problem? What is that about?

Its not a problem. Its amusing. If you have no counter response to the answer I gave you then you haven't thought this argument of yours through enough. Come back with a less flimisier one if this trips you up and stumps you.

Bullshit. This is not about my question regarding justness, this is about the inherent contradiction between your expressing feelings and railing against the discussion of feelings.

I'm not railing against feelings I'm just telling you that I don't care about yours and that my feelings I share when I want to, not when you desire me to like a thirsty little puppy. Why is that so hard for you? Be less desperate.

Is this even about feelings at all? Because I can’t reconcile your harangues against discussing feelings with your discussing feelings. It makes no goddamn sense.

Is what about feelings? My argument, which was to dblack, was that rights are made up and one in particular (property rights) creates actual objective inequality.

While whining about feelings at the same time.

My argument is about objective truths.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

How do I confuse you so much that you start crying about all this other shit? It's not the butting of yourself into other conversations that I have a problem with.

Then why do you keep bitching about it?

It's you butting into conversations and confusing yourself or butting into conversations to tell those people what their argument is about, instead of asking them if you don't know, that I find funny. I'm laughing at you for jumping into conversations you're unprepared for.

This doesn’t mean much when you yourself are always butting into conversations and misconstruing or outright fabricating your opponent’s meaning as you did with dblack in this discussion.

And in that first conversation you confused yourself over the meaning of value as me and that other poster and I continued carrying on our conversation with no confusion whatsoever.

That’s not what you said. You said I “claimed confusion” when I did not.

I'm inferring there (correctly) that he's talking about having equal amounts of an imaginary thing because rights are imaginary and made up.

Wrong. Your response had nothing to do with the subjectivity of rights.

When dblack said: “We need to decide - equal rights or equity. We can't have both.”

You said: “It seems like you just want everyone to continue believing the fantasy that everyone always had an equal right to capital or participation in society.”

The implication is clear; blacks did not always have an equal right to capital or participation in society.

Not only was it an assumption about dblack’s views on the history of rights based on your own feelings, it was irrelevant because blacks have equal right to capital and participation in society today.

I'm not confused by what dblack argument was.

Yes you were. But the point is that you keep bitching about interruptions when you did just that when you responded to his comment that was not addressed to you. A response that was an assumption prompted by your feelings.

And I still don't. I'm also not embarrassed to admit when I'm still confused.

I’m not suggesting you should be embarrassed about being confused but perhaps you should take an objective look at your response to my explanations.
Instead of focusing on the explanation I provided, you focused on trying to prove me wrong that “extralegal” does not mean “illegal”. If you hadn’t tried to deflect, perhaps you would have inderstood the explanation.

If you're going to interrupt my conversation to express confusion or disagreement I'll stop to laugh at you.

What does that have to do with what I said?

Pertinent to what?

Objective force needed to move something/someone, what else?

I know why this is pertinent to my argument. Property rights are made up but the force against others used to create and maintain them are very real. What's pertinent about shopping carts to you?

What’s pertinent about my interruptions when you do the same?

So property rights are made up and force is real. My point to the libertarian is that if you're against putting hands on people for purposes other than self defense then you've already failed by attempting to establish property rights.

How?

I don't have a problem,

Yes you do.

I have amusement at you trying to get into my feelings when my argument is an objective one. Your thirst is funny to me.

Why is it amusing to be asked for your opinion when you do so anyway without being asked?

As I said, your views about sharing opinions are contradictory and make no sense.

Are they? Just because I care about my feelings doesn't mean I have to care about yours.

So then, it’s not about feelings at all. Is that what you’re saying?

I don't know why it matters to you but I find libertarians, who believe that force against others is unjust except in self defense, to be absolutely hilarious in how oblivious they are to the presence of force in the creation and maintenance of property rights, one of the rights they are absolutely big on.

So why does that matter to you?

I just told you.

I did. I said it has significance to my displacement in time and space. If you want something more significant than that you're going to have be more specific about what you're asking me for.

I don’t give a shit what significance it has relative to your position in time and space, I asked what significance it has for you.

Am I bothering you? Then why do you keep responding to me? I respond to you because you amuse me.

You’re the one who whined about being bothered, dumbass.

I don't expect anything from you and I don't care what you do with it. I'm not forcing you to keep responding.

Well that was a stupid thing to say. I respond because.I choose to and I never complained about that in the first place.

I don't care what you do with yourself.

Then why have you been carping at me for months about it?

I only care whether you can find fault with my argument.

Oh, I found plenty of faults with your argument.

And? What's wrong with me using metaphors?

Absolutely nothing.

Mine isn't an opinion.

Much of it is an opinion.

Its not my opinion that property rights can only be created and maintained through force, it's a simple logical fact. Ideas about made up things like property rights are opinions. My comments about the uses of force necessary to establish and maintain them are objectively true.

Only the surface aspect of your argument is true. There are many factors you overlook that make the issue much more complicated than you make it out to be.

Your thirst for fantasizing about me while flattering is also a little weird.

If I was fantasizing then I wouldn’t have asked the question for clarification, you idiot.

I did answer the question. That you don't want to accept that I did is just a testament to how thirsty you are. You're practically parched.

I don’t know if I’m “thirsty” for your feelings or not but I know you are thirsty for validation.

Its not a problem. Its amusing.

Why?

If you have no counter response to the answer I gave you then you haven't thought this argument of yours through enough. Come back with a less flimisier one if this trips you up and stumps you.

What does this have to do with discussing feelings?

I'm not railing against feelings I'm just telling you that I don't care about yours and that my feelings I share when I want to, not when you desire me to like a thirsty little puppy. Why is that so hard for you? Be less desperate.

So what makes you thirsty to share your feelings?

Is what about feelings? My argument, which was to dblack, was that rights are made up and one in particular (property rights) creates actual objective inequality.

This is totally irrelevant to the point about discussing feelings.

My argument is about objective truths.

While discussing feelings and whining about discussing feelings at the same time.

 

[Curried Goats]

Then why do you keep bitching about it?


This doesn’t mean much when you yourself are always butting into conversations and misconstruing or outright fabricating your opponent’s meaning as you did with dblack in this discussion.


That’s not what you said. You said I “claimed confusion” when I did not.


Wrong. Your response had nothing to do with the subjectivity of rights.

When dblack said: “We need to decide - equal rights or equity. We can't have both.”

You said: “It seems like you just want everyone to continue believing the fantasy that everyone always had an equal right to capital or participation in society.”

The implication is clear; blacks did not always have an equal right to capital or participation in society.

Not only was it an assumption about dblack’s views on the history of rights based on your own feelings, it was irrelevant because blacks have equal right to capital and participation in society today.

This is very similar to that first conversation you interrupted and claimed I used value erroneously and in a way the other person never meant and then that poster responded to me and we continued our conversation no problem. dblack didn't say I misinterpeted him and my opening comments to him were purposely prodding.

"It seems like" is an opening that allows him space to clarify.

Yes you were. But the point is that you keep bitching about interruptions when you did just that when you responded to his comment that was not addressed to you. A response that was an assumption prompted by your feelings.

I'm laughing at you interrupting and pretending to speak on behalf of others or trying to tell me what my argument is about.

I’m not suggesting you should be embarrassed about being confused but perhaps you should take an objective look at your response to my explanations.
Instead of focusing on the explanation I provided, you focused on trying to prove me wrong that “extralegal” does not mean “illegal”. If you hadn’t tried to deflect, perhaps you would have inderstood the explanation.

Well you are wrong. It could mean that even if you meant something else. Extralegal is synonymous with illegal after all. That you don't mean the thing it's synonymous with is partly where my confusion comes from. I still don't know what you mean.

What does that have to do with what I said?


Objective force needed to move something/someone, what else?


What’s pertinent about my interruptions when you do the same?


How?


Yes you do.

Why is it amusing to be asked for your opinion when you do so anyway without being asked?

Because I share my feelings when I'm in the mood to. You being so thirsty for them though is funny to me.

As I said, your views about sharing opinions are contradictory and make no sense.

What doesn't make sense about me expressing my feelings on my whims and not yours?

So then, it’s not about feelings at all. Is that what you’re saying?


So why does that matter to you?


I don’t give a shit what significance it has relative to your position in time and space, I asked what significance it has for you.

That is the significance it has for me. Thats why I gave you that answer. Why wouldnt my position in time and space be significant to me?

You’re the one who whined about being bothered, dumbass.


Well that was a stupid thing to say. I respond because.I choose to and I never complained about that in the first place.


Then why have you been carping at me for months about it?

You started this conversation with me guy I'm just responding. I don't care what you do with yourself or if you stop responding and I really don't care about all this other shit you cry about. I'm really mostly interested in what you imagine to be wrong about me argument.

Oh, I found plenty of faults with your argument.

Did you? Faults that are actually about my argument and not scenarios that have nothing to do with them? What are they?

Absolutely nothing.


Much of it is an opinion.


Only the surface aspect of your argument is true. There are many factors you overlook that make the issue much more complicated than you make it out to be.

Like what? Do you have any other counter argument beyond the scenario where they're not trying to establish and maintain property rights?

If I was fantasizing then I wouldn’t have asked the question for clarification, you idiot.

You admitted to fantasizing about me thinking about justness.

I don’t know if I’m “thirsty” for your feelings or not but I know you are thirsty for validation.

Do you know? How? Mind reading?

That isn't knowledge you clown, that's your imagination.

Why?

What does this have to do with discussing feelings?


So what makes you thirsty to share your feelings?

How are you using thirsty there? What does thirsty mean to you in this sentence?

This is totally irrelevant to the point about discussing feelings.

While discussing feelings and whining about discussing feelings at the same time.

I'm laughing at you begging for me feelings. Have some self respect for fucks sake.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reason.com

This isn't Marxism. It's progressive liberalism. Progressives are the useful idiot's real Marxist use to bring down a society. If they gain control the useful idiots are the 2nd group to be reeducated and or murdered.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

This is very similar to that first conversation you interrupted and claimed I used value erroneously and in a way the other person never meant and then that poster responded to me and we continued our conversation no problem.

Wrong. I did not say you used the word “value” erroneously. I simply told you what he said.
That said, you still butted in and responded to a comment that was not addressed to you and ascribed an assumed meaning to his words based on your own feelings.

You also butted in and responded to a question by me addressed to IM2 in the “Political conversations with teens…” thread based on your feelings about bigotry.

dblack didn't say I misinterpeted him and my opening comments to him were purposely prodding.

"It seems like" is an opening that allows him space to clarify.

Irrelevant. The question is, why would you need clarification on his view of the history of equal rights when his comment had nothing to do with that and was irrelevant to the topic of equality-vs.-equity anyway? How did your feelings lead you to that assumption?

I'm laughing at you interrupting and pretending to speak on behalf of others or trying to tell me what my argument is about.

Like you thought dblack was saying everyone always had an equal right to capital and participation in society because of your own feelings on that issue?

Well you are wrong. It could mean that even if you meant something else. Extralegal is synonymous with illegal after all. That you don't mean the thing it's synonymous with is partly where my confusion comes from. I still don't know what you mean.

Precisely my point. You got hung up on a synonym of “extralegal” instead of trying to understand the definition I used.

Do you understand the definition of “extralegal”?

Because I share my feelings when I'm in the mood to. You being so thirsty for them though is funny to me.

Why?

But if asking questions truly amuses you, let’s see if your own questions to me about my views on bigotry are as entertaining.

In that same previously mentioned thread, you asked: “So rights for gay people aren't important?”

And “I'm asking you. Whether or not you think he's a bigot is subjective to whether you think someone who calls gay people faggots is a bigot or not.”

So here you are asking my opinion about something. But wait, it gets even more amusing. When I asked why you were asking me and suggested you ask him (Brokeloser), you said:

“So I can better understand what you think bigotry is.”

And for more belly laughs, after telling you the question was irrelevant, you continued to hound me for an answer:

“You asked guy, why are dismissing the answer?”

And:

“If you have no personal feelings on bigotry that's cool with me I don't know why you're being weird about it.”
And after everything you’ve said about opinions in this thread, this quote from you in that same discussion slays me:

“So it's okay to talk about opinions now?”

What doesn't make sense about me expressing my feelings on my whims and not yours?

It doesn’t make sense in light of the way you hounded me for an answer to a question in the other discussion as I just proved.

That is the significance it has for me. Thats why I gave you that answer. Why wouldnt my position in time and space be significant to me?

Well that was a pointless question.

You started this conversation with me guy I'm just responding. I don't care what you do with yourself or if you stop responding and I really don't care about all this other shit you cry about. I'm really mostly interested in what you imagine to be wrong about me argument.

If you don’t care, why does it matter?

Did you? Faults that are actually about my argument and not scenarios that have nothing to do with them? What are they?

I thought you didn’t care.

Like what? Do you have any other counter argument beyond the scenario where they're not trying to establish and maintain property rights?

Again, I thought you didn’t care.

You admitted to fantasizing about me thinking about justness.

If we’re going to use the word “fantasize” then let’s run with it.

You fantasized that dblack thinks everyone always had an equal right to capital.

You fantasized that I was avoiding the truth of a culture change re race relations when we never discussed it.

You fantasized Charlie Kirk’s motives for debating college students.

You “fantasize” about a lot of things but you pretend you don’t.

Do you know? How? Mind reading?

Pretty much the same way you know I’m “thirsty” for your feelings, whatever the fuck that means.

That isn't knowledge you clown, that's your imagination.

Is it? I don’t know, a lot of the telltale signs are there:

• Professing amusement about asking opinions while asking opinions.
• Criticizing assumptions while making assumptions.
• Calling out name calling and belittlement while name calling and belittling.
• Name calling and belittling.

It’s the only thing I can think of to explain that level of hypocrisy and lack of self awareness.

How are you using thirsty there? What does thirsty mean to you in this sentence?

Are you asking my opinion?

I'm laughing at you begging for me feelings. Have some self respect for fucks sake.

Did you laugh when you begged for my opinion?

 

[Curried Goats]

Wrong. I did not say you used the word “value” erroneously. I simply told you what he said.
That said, you still butted in and responded to a comment that was not addressed to you and ascribed an assumed meaning to his words based on your own feelings.

You don't need to pretend to tell me you know what others were saying. They can speak for themselves if they want to. How about you try speaking for yourself?

You also butted in and responded to a question by me addressed to IM2 in the “Political conversations with teens…” thread based on your feelings about bigotry.


Irrelevant. The question is, why would you need clarification on his view of the history of equal rights when his comment had nothing to do with that and was irrelevant to the topic of equality-vs.-equity anyway? How did your feelings lead you to that assumption?



Like you thought dblack was saying everyone always had an equal right to capital and participation in society because of your own feelings on that issue?

Precisely my point. You got hung up on a synonym of “extralegal” instead of trying to understand the definition I used.

Do you understand the definition of “extralegal”?


Why?

But if asking questions truly amuses you, let’s see if your own questions to me about my views on bigotry are as entertaining.

In that same previously mentioned thread, you asked: “So rights for gay people aren't important?”

And “I'm asking you. Whether or not you think he's a bigot is subjective to whether you think someone who calls gay people faggots is a bigot or not.”

So here you are asking my opinion about something. But wait, it gets even more amusing. When I asked why you were asking me and suggested you ask him (Brokeloser), you said:

“So I can better understand what you think bigotry is.”

And for more belly laughs, after telling you the question was irrelevant, you continued to hound me for an answer:

“You asked guy, why are dismissing the answer?”

And:

“If you have no personal feelings on bigotry that's cool with me I don't know why you're being weird about it.”
And after everything you’ve said about opinions in this thread, this quote from you in that same discussion slays me:

“So it's okay to talk about opinions now?”

You went searching for all that? You thirsty mother fucker you.

It doesn’t make sense in light of the way you hounded me for an answer to a question in the other discussion as I just proved.

Sure it does. My curiosity I'm okay with, your desperate thirst for my feelings is funny to me. How are you still confused you moron?

Well that was a pointless question.


If you don’t care, why does it matter?


I thought you didn’t care.



Again, I thought you didn’t care.


If we’re going to use the word “fantasize” then let’s run with it.

You fantasized that dblack thinks everyone always had an equal right to capital.

I said it seemed like, which to me was an opening for him to correct me with a clearer form of his argument. That was my intention. Not to make his argument up for him.

You fantasized that I was avoiding the truth of a culture change re race relations when we never discussed it.

You fantasized Charlie Kirk’s motives for debating college students.

You “fantasize” about a lot of things but you pretend you don’t.



Pretty much the same way you know I’m “thirsty” for your feelings, whatever the fuck that means.

Is it? I don’t know, a lot of the telltale signs are there:

• Professing amusement about asking opinions while asking opinions.
• Criticizing assumptions while making assumptions.
• Calling out name calling and belittlement while name calling and belittling.
• Name calling and belittling.

It’s the only thing I can think of to explain that level of hypocrisy and lack of self awareness.

I'm very aware at how much I fuck with you for my own amusement.

Are you asking my opinion?

Did you laugh when you begged for my opinion?

So all if this now if just you crying about your feelings? You have no objective counter to my objective argument?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You don't need to pretend to tell me you know what others were saying. They can speak for themselves if they want to. How about you try speaking for yourself?

That’s hilarious. Man, you certainly are thirsty to pretend you’re not as thirsty as I am.

Keep trying Lumpy. You just might stumble on something that sticks.

You went searching for all that? You thirsty mother fucker you.

“How are you using thirsty there? What does thirsty mean to you in this sentence?”

Sure it does. My curiosity I'm okay with, your desperate thirst for my feelings is funny to me. How are you still confused you moron?

And your thirst for my feelings? You were desperately thirsty for my feelings about bigotry. How are you still confused that they’re the same thing you moron?

I said it seemed like, which to me was an opening for him to correct me with a clearer form of his argument. That was my intention. Not to make his argument up for him.

His argument was “Equality or Equity. We can’t have both.”

It doesn’t get any clearer than that. Yours was just a feeble attempt to divert the discussion to slavery and institutional racism because it’s a sensitive topic for you even though neither exist anymore .

I'm very aware at how much I fuck with you for my own amusement.

I’m very aware that this is an impotent attempt to trigger me to avoid the truth.

So all if this now if just you crying about your feelings?

No, it’s about both of us “crying” about feelings. Was that not clear to you even after I quoted you crying about your feelings? Just how stupid are you?

You have no objective counter to my objective argument?

Yes, I do.

 

[Curried Goats]

That’s hilarious. Man, you certainly are thirsty to pretend you’re not as thirsty as I am.

It doesn't quite work the same because there won't be page after page of me hounding you for answer you were already given.

Keep trying Lumpy. You just might stumble on something that sticks.


“How are you using thirsty there? What does thirsty mean to you in this sentence?”

And your thirst for my feelings? You were desperately thirsty for my feelings about bigotry. How are you still confused that they’re the same thing you moron?

Nope. Just curious. I ask people things when im curious. There's no page after page of you asking me the same question and not accepting the answer I gave you. That's how I'm defining thirsty. Who knows what the fuck you're talking about.

His argument was “Equality or Equity. We can’t have both.”

It doesn’t get any clearer than that. Yours was just a feeble attempt to divert the discussion to slavery and institutional racism because it’s a sensitive topic for you even though neither exist anymore .

Or..... because equal rights are made up. Kind of seems like we can't really have equal amounts of an imaginary thing so I wanted to talk about objective forms of equality. You imagine whatever you like though.....

I’m very aware that this is an impotent attempt to trigger me to avoid the truth.

What truth? What fantasy will you share as pretense of objective truth?

No, it’s about both of us “crying” about feelings. Was that not clear to you even after I quoted you crying about your feelings? Just how stupid are you?

Yes, I do.

You quoted me asking questions to people.


When you find page after page of me asking someone the same question they already answered just because I don't like the answer then maybe you found some equivalent behavior.

Also no longer are you even trying to defeat me argument. It's just all about me now..... but no, you aren't in your feels....

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It doesn't quite work the same because there won't be page after page of me hounding you for answer you were already given.

What doesn’t work and why?

Nope. Just curious. I ask people things when im curious. There's no page after page of you asking me the same question and not accepting the answer I gave you. That's how I'm defining thirsty. Who knows what the fuck you're talking about.

I didn’t ask you to define “thirsty” and I’m just using it the same way you do.

Or..... because equal rights are made up. Kind of seems like we can't really have equal amounts of an imaginary thing so I wanted to talk about objective forms of equality. You imagine whatever you like though.....

You’re the one who brought up rights you fucking moron. All he said was that we can’t have both.

If you were confused about what he meant then you should have asked him instead of trying to put him on the defensive over one of your own moral hangups.

What truth? What fantasy will you share as pretense of objective truth?

What fantasy will you share as pretense of objective thirst for feelings? What does that even mean?

You quoted me asking questions to people.

Yes. Being thirsty for feelings. Was that not also obvious? I thought that’s what we were talking about: the asking of questions and how that makes one “thirsty”.

When you find page after page of me asking someone the same question they already answered just because I don't like the answer then maybe you found some equivalent behavior.

Like you did with me and the bigotry question, right?

Also no longer are you even trying to defeat me argument. It's just all about me now..... but no, you aren't in your feels....

I’m not the one who got hung up on feelings, you did. More to the point, you got hung up on my feelings.

You revived a discussion that had been dead for a month. In fact, it’s the second time you’ve revived this discussion after it’s been dead for weeks.

 

[Curried Goats]

What doesn’t work and why?

.... Because there isn't page after page of me asking you the same question you already answered. I thought I explained that?

I didn’t ask you to define “thirsty” and I’m just using it the same way you do.

Are you though? How do you know if you don't know what I mean by thirsty?

You’re the one who brought up rights you fucking moron. All he said was that we can’t have both.

And? Why are you crying on behalf of someone else again? Also he mentioned equal rights in another post that you didn't quote. This is the problem you ran into before, in this very thread no less, when you tried to cry on behalf of another poster.

Our Constitution promises us neither equality nor equity. It promises us equal rights under the law. Tasking government with either equality or equity as a goal, demands that it violate equal rights. That's a problem. We're trading in equal rights for "equity" and it will come back to haunt us.

I know that dblack was talking about an equal amounts of an imaginary substance, even if you didn't.

If you were confused about what he meant then you should have asked him instead of trying to put him on the defensive over one of your own moral hangups.

Nope. Not confused at all. I'm aware of what dblack was arguing. You weren't.

What fantasy will you share as pretense of objective thirst for feelings? What does that even mean?

It means, what pretending and make believing are you going to engage in to argue that you know what I'm feeling?

Yes. Being thirsty for feelings. Was that not also obvious? I thought that’s what we were talking about: the asking of questions and how that makes one “thirsty”.

Is it? Is that what you think I mean by thirsty?

Like you did with me and the bigotry question, right?

Nope. In that exchange I was responding to things that both you and BrokeLoser said and was seeking clarity. You yourself admitted that I wasnt talking about justness and then you introduced the question and wouldn't accept the answer I gave you. That's the thirst.

I’m not the one who got hung up on feelings, you did. More to the point, you got hung up on my feelings.

I'm amused that you tried to tackle my objective argument, failed and now are letting all the feels out. I'd be happy to go back to watching you fail at the objective test.

You revived a discussion that had been dead for a month. In fact, it’s the second time you’ve revived this discussion after it’s been dead for weeks.

I forgot you existed then I saw a random post of yours and remembered. So it goes sometimes.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

.... Because there isn't page after page of me asking you the same question you already answered. I thought I explained that?

You did and I understood it the first time.

I asked that question - a leading question, if you will - for a reason. The other day I asked a separate question (the first time asking it) and your response was “That sounds like a feelings question to me.”.
When I asked a second question in that same post, your response was “See. Another feeling question.”.

• You gripe about feelings when a question is asked more than once but you also gripe about feelings if a question is asked only once.
• You gripe about feelings when a question is asked but sometimes you’ll answer anyway.
• You gripe about feelings when a question is asked but you’ll ask opinions yourself and occasionally offer opinions without being asked.

Your caterwauling about feelings is all over the fucking map and is why I asked if it was not about feelings at all. But you refused to even acknowledge that question at all. Yet another contradiction.

Are you though? How do you know if you don't know what I mean by thirsty?

I don’t give a shit what you mean by “thirsty” because it’s subjective.

And? Why are you crying on behalf of someone else again?

Why did you?

Also he mentioned equal rights in another post that you didn't quote. This is the problem you ran into before, in this very thread no less, when you tried to cry on behalf of another poster.

Like you did when you jumped in on IM2’s behalf to cry that Brokeloser is a bigot and your desperate attempt to convince me that he is based on your own feelings and opinion.

Your feelings about Brokeloser are your problem, not mine. I also don’t care if he is a bigot or not. It was irrelevant to my point that I addressed to IM2 and not to you.

I know that dblack was talking about an equal amounts of an imaginary substance, even if you didn't.

Irrelevant. Your response to him had nothing to do with rights being subjective. It was about your assumption that he thinks everyone (blacks, specifically) always had an equal right to capital.

If your premise was that rights are imaginary then your response made no sense.

Nope. Not confused at all. I'm aware of what dblack was arguing. You weren't.

Again, if your premise was that rights are imaginary then your response to him made no sense.

Besides, as I said before, the principles of equality and equity contradict each other whether it’s imaginary rights or something else entirely. Your comment to him was (an interruption) irrelevant.

It means, what pretending and make believing are you going to engage in to argue that you know what I'm feeling?

So I ask again: What fantasy will you share as pretense of objective thirst for feelings?

Is it? Is that what you think I mean by thirsty?

Your reasons for bitching about feelings changes from post to post so, does it matter?

Nope. In that exchange I was responding to things that both you and BrokeLoser said and was seeking clarity.

Nope. You asked me if I thought the word “faggot” was bigoted. When I told you it was irrelevant to my question to IM2, you kept after me about it for a couple of days and eventually said I was being “weird” about it.

You yourself admitted that I wasnt talking about justness and then you introduced the question and wouldn't accept the answer I gave you. That's the thirst.

And you continued to evade the question as to what you thought my question was leading you to. You never acknowledged that one, much less bitched about it being a feelings question.

I'm amused that you tried to tackle my objective argument, failed and now are letting all the feels out. I'd be happy to go back to watching you fail at the objective test.

Are you going to sit there and pretend I didn’t tell you multiple times that I never disputed your objective arguments? Fucking idiot.

I forgot you existed then I saw a random post of yours and remembered. So it goes sometimes.

In other words, you revived a month-dead discussion to bitch about feelings all over again.

 

[Curried Goats]

You did and I understood it the first time.

I asked that question - a leading question, if you will - for a reason. The other day I asked a separate question (the first time asking it) and your response was “That sounds like a feelings question to me.”.
When I asked a second question in that same post, your response was “See. Another feeling question.”.

• You gripe about feelings when a question is asked more than once but you also gripe about feelings if a question is asked only once.
• You gripe about feelings when a question is asked but sometimes you’ll answer anyway.
• You gripe about feelings when a question is asked but you’ll ask opinions yourself and occasionally offer opinions without being asked.

Your caterwauling about feelings is all over the fucking map and is why I asked if it was not about feelings at all. But you refused to even acknowledge that question at all. Yet another contradiction.

I don’t give a shit what you mean by “thirsty” because it’s subjective.

Why did you?

Like you did when you jumped in on IM2’s behalf to cry that Brokeloser is a bigot and your desperate attempt to convince me that he is based on your own feelings and opinion.

Your feelings about Brokeloser are your problem, not mine. I also don’t care if he is a bigot or not. It was irrelevant to my point that I addressed to IM2 and not to you.

Irrelevant. Your response to him had nothing to do with rights being subjective. It was about your assumption that he thinks everyone (blacks, specifically) always had an equal right to capital.

If your premise was that rights are imaginary then your response made no sense.

Again, if your premise was that rights are imaginary then your response to him made no sense.

Besides, as I said before, the principles of equality and equity contradict each other whether it’s imaginary rights or something else entirely. Your comment to him was (an interruption) irrelevant.


So I ask again: What fantasy will you share as pretense of objective thirst for feelings?

Your reasons for bitching about feelings changes from post to post so, does it matter?


Nope. You asked me if I thought the word “faggot” was bigoted. When I told you it was irrelevant to my question to IM2, you kept after me about it for a couple of days and eventually said I was being “weird” about it.

And you continued to evade the question as to what you thought my question was leading you to. You never acknowledged that one, much less bitched about it being a feelings question.


Are you going to sit there and pretend I didn’t tell you multiple times that I never disputed your objective arguments? Fucking idiot.

In other words, you revived a month-dead discussion to bitch about feelings all over again.

To laugh at you for failing after all this time to defeat my argument.

You seem to think I have a problem with feelings. I don't. I'm not a robot you moron, I just don't care about yours.