Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

861 Loser - Edwards

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 861 Loser - Edwards

    " Ford Prefect" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news2F%[email protected]
    I think we have a winner here, folks. Good argument.
    So then, if I embrace anarchy, and firmly believe that EVERYTHING
    in the world belongs to me, you will support my belief?
    "XCobraJock" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    esenter wrote:
    Since the only basis for morality an anarchist has is
    himself . . . It's not about whether one is an anarchist - or a DemocRAT, or a Xian, or a Muslim, or a Repooplican. It's about whether you believe you should subordinate your own judgment of right and wrong to the the judgments of other people (politician commands, i.e. "the Law," in paticular). It's obvious even to you by now that you can't do that without USING your own judgment to begin with. While societal conditioning plays a powerful role in determining your prejudices (such as believing in Jesus rather than Allah, if you're an American theist), it is ultimately your responsibility to choose right from wrong in any case. That responsibility cannot be "delegated." Any attempt to slough that responsibility off in favor of obedience to the commands of someone else, or some other group, is always dependent on your own judgment that THAT person or group is the RIGHT person or group to follow. Your own judgment will determine whether the principles of that person or group agree with your own values, and will accept or reject him/it based on that comparison. Politicians know this. They understand that when people discover the ruling party is a dictatorship, and makes mistakes that cost them money and lives, people will tend to reject them and their rulership. So they set up the "two party" scam: Two parties, one for the "good guys" and one for the "bad guys." Each party claims to be the "good guys," naturally. Each party adopts rhetoric that appeals to approximately half of the voters. One side proclaims itself the champion of the worker, the "little guy," and the downtrodden. The other party extolls the virtues of hard work, individualism, and strict observance of the language in the constitution. Both parties can adopt the same rhtetoric, alternately, since there's no real difference in how they rule. For example, one year party A might lie to drag the country into a war. Forty years later, party B lies to drag the country into a war. Party B can run up "record deficits" prompting party A to call them "reckless and irresponsible." Twenty years later, the two sides switch roles. Voters hardly notice. For one thing, they're different voters forty or even twenty years later. For another, voters are the kind of people who can rationalize when their party does something evil, even though it is the same kind of thing the "bad guys" did when they were in power. The ruling party picks a few candidates that will do what the ruling party wants done, and lets the voters choose between them - so the voters will think THEY, not the rulers, are their "government." After the election, the leaders of the two parties get back together and resume ruling the same way they always have. If your party "wins" the election, hurray for your side, right? The country instantly becomes good again, and all is well. It doesn't occur to you that you've been had. It doesn't look at all fishy after a while that the "two parties" always wind up doing THE SAME THINGS? If it does, your judgment has been so bound by irrational beliefs that you no longer trust it to tell you the truth. You accept the "two party" scam without question, until one fine day you are challenged to defend it by someone who has had enough of the bull**** "system" and its lying-*** politicians. If you have argued this far, you have at least a modicum of hope that you can shed yourself of the irrational belief that causes such conflicting attitudes inside your head - such as the attitude that "the income tax is a tax on the honest man, and should be abolished," yet at the same time "tax protesters are wrong, we neeeeed taxes in order to build roads!" The vast majority of state-worshippers don't allow themselves to argue with someone "crazy" enough to call their beloved constitution a mere piece of paper. They're saisfied with their delusion as long as it doesn't cost them "too much" money, or "too many" lives. That's not you, ed. You're not exactly satisfied with the "system," despite your personal animosity toward me, an ironic twist owing to the fact that it is your own judgment you're using to bash the idea of using your own judgment. However, after just a few years of this running debate, you now come to the following conclusion: Everyone must rely on his own judgment, and the "law" doesn't outrank that judgment. Understanding the inevitability of individual judgment is the first step in shedding yourself of the Grand Delusion. Congratulations. XCobraJock
    > Everyone must rely on his own judgment. The "law" doesn't outrank> that judgment. Therefore:>> __a) we have an obligation to place the law above our own> sense of right and wong, or> __b) individual judgment trumps "the law" when deciding right> and wrong>> One answer makes you an anarchist. The other makes you a self> contradictory twit.> Since the only basis for morality an anarchist has is himself, a moral "anarchist" is therefore: ___a) a mental masturbator, ___b) an oxymoron, or ___c) both


  • #2
    861 Loser - Edwards

    Richard Macdonald wrote:
    So then, if I embrace anarchy,
    False premise. It's not about embracing - it's about recognizing
    reality. Anarchy exists. From either premise however, the next
    incorrect assumption does not follow:
    and firmly believe that EVERYTHING in the world belongs to me,
    a) "anarchy exists."
    b) "therefore, everything in the world belongs to Richard Macdonald."

    Mind explaining how you arrived at 'b' from 'a'? To begin with,
    you have anarchy confused with *anarchism. Then you have anarchism
    confused with solipsism, which is the idea that if you imagine
    something it makes it real.
    you will support my belief?
    If we don't support your current superstitious beliefs, why would we
    support them if you traded them for something little different from
    what you believe now?

    *http://nogov4me.net/archive/anarchyis.htm

    --XCobraJock

    Comment


    • #3
      861 Loser - Edwards


      "Richard Macdonald" <[email protected]> wrote in message
      news:[email protected]
      " Ford Prefect" <[email protected]> wrote in message news2F%[email protected]
      I think we have a winner here, folks. Good argument.
      So then, if I embrace anarchy, and firmly believe that EVERYTHING in the world belongs to me, you will support my belief?

      Depends upon your definition of anarchy. My definition upholds the
      sacredness of the individual and their rights.
      So does, I believe, the constitution of the united States of America.


      Comment


      • #4
        861 Loser - Edwards

        esenter wrote:
        > Six BILLION individuals, each one using his OWN BEST JUDGMENT,> have the RIGHT to make laws and run around enforcing them> against everyone else?> How is that DIFFERENT from anarchy? That IS anarchy, you dolt. Yes, ed - that's what I've been trying to tell you for years. You finally get it. No, oinkymalloy -
        Yes, eddie-weddie. I've been telling you for years that
        anarchy exists. You've been saying, "No, no,no!" over and over.
        You can't now claim you "got it" a long time ago.

        --XCobraJock

        Comment


        • #5
          861 Loser - Edwards



          XCobraJock wrote:
          esenter wrote:
          >> Six BILLION individuals, each one using his OWN BEST JUDGMENT,>> have the RIGHT to make laws and run around enforcing them>> against everyone else?>> How is that DIFFERENT from anarchy?>> That IS anarchy, you dolt. Yes, ed - that's what I've been trying to tell you for years. You finally get it. No, oinkymalloy -
          Yes, eddie-weddie. I've been telling you for years that anarchy exists. You've been saying, "No, no,no!" over and over. You can't now claim you "got it" a long time ago.
          Getting the definition does not mean "anarchy exists", you dolt.


          Comment


          • #6
            861 Loser - Edwards


            "esenter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
            news:[email protected]
            XCobraJock wrote:
            esenter wrote:
            >>> Six BILLION individuals, each one using his OWN BEST JUDGMENT,>>> have the RIGHT to make laws and run around enforcing them>>> against everyone else?>>> How is that DIFFERENT from anarchy?>>>> That IS anarchy, you dolt.>> Yes, ed - that's what I've been trying to tell you for years.> You finally get it. No, oinkymalloy -
            Yes, eddie-weddie. I've been telling you for years that anarchy exists. You've been saying, "No, no,no!" over and over. You can't now claim you "got it" a long time ago.
            Getting the definition does not mean "anarchy exists", you dolt.
            I'll believe anarchy exists when I see a wolf pack without an alpha wolf.

            People packs work the same way.


            Comment


            • #7
              861 Loser - Edwards

              Rick B wrote:
              >>>>Six BILLION individuals, each one using his OWN BEST JUDGMENT,>>>>have the RIGHT to make laws and run around enforcing them>>>>against everyone else?>>>>How is that DIFFERENT from anarchy?>>>That IS anarchy, you dolt.>>Yes, ed - that's what I've been trying to tell you for years.>>You finally get it.>No, oinkymalloy -Yes, eddie-weddie. I've been telling you for years thatanarchy exists. You've been saying, "No, no,no!" over and over.You can't now claim you "got it" a long time ago.Getting the definition does not mean "anarchy exists", you dolt. I'll believe anarchy exists when I see a wolf pack without an alpha wolf.
              ed proved anarchy exists. It's not a matter of belief:

              a) Everyone uses his own best judgment to determine right
              and wrong - ed agrees.

              b) Each person has the right to make laws and enforce them,
              ed said.

              c) 6,000,000,000 individuals, each one making and enforcing
              his own laws on others is anarchy, ed agrees.

              If a is reality, and b is reality, and c is reality, and
              a + b + c = anarchy, then reality = anarchy.

              Joining a cult and enforcing its commandments doesn't change that.

              --XCobraJock

              PS - (Wolves live in anarchy, too.)



              Comment


              • #8
                861 Loser - Edwards



                XCobraJock wrote:
                Rick B wrote:
                >>>>> Six BILLION individuals, each one using his OWN BEST JUDGMENT,>>>>> have the RIGHT to make laws and run around enforcing them>>>>> against everyone else?>>>>> How is that DIFFERENT from anarchy?>>>>>>>> That IS anarchy, you dolt.>>>>>> Yes, ed - that's what I've been trying to tell you for years.>>> You finally get it.>>>> No, oinkymalloy ->> Yes, eddie-weddie. I've been telling you for years that> anarchy exists. You've been saying, "No, no,no!" over and over.> You can't now claim you "got it" a long time ago. Getting the definition does not mean "anarchy exists", you dolt. I'll believe anarchy exists when I see a wolf pack without an alpha wolf.
                ed proved anarchy exists. It's not a matter of belief: a) Everyone uses his own best judgment to determine right and wrong - ed agrees. b) Each person has the right to make laws and enforce them, ed said.
                No, oinkymalloy, I said: Each person has a "right" to make laws and TRY
                to enforce them. ("right" is in quotes indicating fantasy like you
                like to do)

                Why are you such an intellectually dishonest dolt, oinkymalloy?

                c) 6,000,000,000 individuals, each one making and enforcing his own laws on others is anarchy, ed agrees. If a is reality, and b is reality, and c is reality, and a + b + c = anarchy, then reality = anarchy.
                b and c ain't reality - they would be utter chaos. But that is what
                oinkymalloy wants so he can believe he is in charge...

                Joining a cult and enforcing its commandments doesn't change that.
                Forming a social compact whereby each individual surrenders their right
                to individual action sure improves the quality of life.

                --XCobraJock PS - (Wolves live in anarchy, too.)
                Retired copter pilots living off the govt should not comment on the
                social behavior of wolves. They might huff and puff and blow
                oinkymalloy's house down - Proving once again that an anarchist is just
                another dictator in pigskin...


                Comment

                The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                Working...
                X