PS again.

[Dale Eastman]

Liberty or Slavery

If you are an anti-gun coward...
Try to understand:

A human with a gun will not gently become a slave.

Dale: nobody wants to make you a slave.
You have definitely earned your award: best dramatic actress.

Before you and I can have a discussion, we need to come to an agreement as to what specific terms mean to each of us.

What are the specific traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of "slave" as YOU use the word?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale, it doesn’t include “being required to pay taxes”.

It doesn’t mean “have to obey the law in a constitutional republic”.

It doesn’t mean “I didn’t sign the Constitution, so I do not consent.”

I’m not big on drama.

It means “ownership of another human being, including the rights to enjoy the fruit of their production, the right to alienate or dispose of them, and the right to mandate, unilaterally without their input or consent, the rules by which they must work and live, including the same rights to their offspring.”

Thank you for actually attending to my question.

I'm setting your first three sentences as to what slave doesn't mean aside.

I'll decide later if I'm going to take umbrage at your implied claim of my posting "drama".

I find that your meaning of slave, and my meaning of slave do not differ enough to require discussion. You might not agree, so, for the record, here's how I define slave:
⚡A slave is a human whose owner's free will overrides the slave's free will. Pick cotton or get the whip.⚡

Excerpting from your definition of slave:
➽ the right to mandate, unilaterally without their input or consent, the rules by which they must work and live

How does the slave's owner come by "the right to mandate, unilaterally without their input or consent, the rules by which they must work and live"?

[Dale Eastman]

By force.

But that doesn’t mean force is always bad.

Eating fifty apples will make you sick.

That doesn’t mean apples are bad.

Hitting someone in the head with a hammer is bad.

That doesn’t mean hammers are bad.

I have no patience for the definition that “the state is a monopoly on the use of force”, or other such libertarian or ancap nonsense.

➽ By force.

Precisely. You and I agree on that point.

➽ But that doesn’t mean force is always bad.

I agree with that statement, just as written and quoted.

What are the specific traits, properties, attributes, characteristics and/or circumstances of YOUR decision regarding the good or bad use of force?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale, I’m not interested in playing 20 questions.

You asked, I answered.

If you have an argument, just make it.

➽ If you have an argument, just make it.

➽ Dale: nobody wants to make you a slave.

You are wrong.

➽ Dale, I’m not interested in playing 20 questions.

Well of course you're not interested in my questions. You know they will expose you.

Second inquiry: What are the specific traits, properties, attributes, characteristics and/or circumstances of YOUR decision regarding the good or bad use of force?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale, that’s nonsense.
You’re asking questions because you don’t have an argument.

I have literally debated all my life.

I did it competitively all through high school and college. Won a lot of trophies and stuff.

And if you think badgering people is debate, you don’t understand debate.

Here’s the truth: it is a common practice for people who have flimsy, easily defeatable positions to engage in what they think is “Socratic” methodology, where they ask questions hoping to trap people into exposing that they haven’t really thought through an issue.

That’s why you see so many libertarians and ancaps who really know nothing about anything.

After a life of caring about nothing but weed, someone snatched their attention and “woke them up” by leading them down a trail of nonsense on issues they had never considered.

And never having thought about issues themselves, they naturally assume that everyone else is just as ignorant and slothful as they were.

They just have no clue that there are people who didn’t get their information by being led by someone who had a libertarian agenda, but actually STUDIED history, philosophy, and economics.

To them, that sort of study seems remote, like something only “super special people”, not something accessible to them.

So they allow themselves to be blinkered and led, and they are fooled by the clumsiest of logical fallacies.

And they think that doing the same to others will “wake them up”, too.

Of course, they tend not to be very good at it, so they never get past the “asking you 20 questions” stage of things, and like most projects in their smoke-filled lives, the projects of “waking people up” go pretty much unfinished.

It’s cute when they try this stuff, in the same way watching a toddler try to explain how a car works is cute, but it’s really not all that interesting to humor them.

Hidden reply not posted: https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1442.0

Simply stating your opinions does not make your opinions into facts. So I'm going to ignore your bloviating of your D⁶ opinions.

I'm going to drag the focus of this discussion back onto the topic of contention.

Your claim ➽ Dale: nobody wants to make you a slave.

You agreed the specific traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of "slave": ➽ means “ownership of another human being, including the rights to enjoy the fruit of their production, the right to alienate or dispose of them, and the right to mandate, unilaterally without their input or consent, the rules by which they must work and live

I asked, How does the slave's owner come by "the right to mandate, unilaterally without their [the slave's] input or consent, the rules by which they [the slaves] must work and live"?

You stated: ➽ By force.
You also stated: ➽ But that doesn’t mean force is always bad.

Simple question: Is force bad when it is used to enslave people?

[Dale Eastman]

Simple question: are you EVER going to make an argument?

I mean, everyone sees what you’re doing.

You realize that with any rational definition of slavery, nobody wants to enslave you.

So you’re fishing for some angle by which to play a word game where you can substitute some insane definition of slavery for an actual one, and say “lots of people want to do THAT, so see? Everybody wants to enslave me!!!”

Hence the award for best supporting actress in a dramatic performance, lol.

It’s lame and pathetic - and I mean pathetic as in “loaded to the gills with pathos”.
Have a nice evening.

➽ Simple question: are you EVER going to make an argument?

Before you and I can have a discussion, we need to come to an agreement as to what specific terms mean to each of us.

What are the specific traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of "argument" as YOU use the word?

Are you using the word "argument" to mean "make a claim"?

If so, I did make a specific claim. I claimed: ⚡A human with a gun will not gently become a slave.⚡

Transforming the statement by substituting YOUR meaning for slave nets the following:
A human with a gun will not gently become a "ownership of another human being, including the rights to enjoy the fruit of their production, the right to alienate or dispose of them, and the right to mandate, unilaterally without their input or consent, the rules by which they must work and live, including the same rights to their offspring."

Translating:
A human with a gun will not gently become "[owned by] another human being, [lose] the rights to enjoy the fruit of their production, [lose] the right to [not be] mandate[d], unilaterally without their input or consent, [lose the right to choose] the rules by which they [will] work and live[...]"

Instead of addressing this argument/ claim, you chose to make your own argument/ claim: ➽ Dale: nobody wants to make you a slave.

OBJECTION! Relies on facts not in evidence. Please present your evidence that not one person of the approximately 7.9 billion (7,952,347,000) people on the planet do not want to make me a slave.
Or man up and 'fess to making shit up.

➽ I mean, everyone sees what you’re doing.

I certainly hope so. Just as I hope they are seeing what you are doing. I am publicly archiving this discussion on my web site. Do you want me to use your name or should I continue to hide your identity by only using your initials?

➽ You realize that with any rational definition of slavery, nobody wants to enslave you.

Your bullshit made up claim didn't fly the first time. It isn't flying now either.

➽ So you’re fishing for some angle by which to play a word game where you can substitute some insane definition of slavery for an actual one, and say “lots of people want to do THAT, so see? Everybody wants to enslave me!!!”

You know you can't have it both ways. We are playing 20 questions so I can use YOUR (allegedly not insane) definition of slavery. Methinks ye forgot my early words: ⚡Before you and I can have a discussion, we need to come to an agreement as to what specific terms mean to each of us.⚡

Earlier you admitted that enslavement happens: ➽ By force.
You also stated: ➽ But that doesn’t mean force is always bad.

So I asked: ⚡Is force bad when it is used to enslave people?⚡

I'm changing the question: ⚡Is using force to enslave people moral?⚡

[Dale Eastman]

Dale, oh ffs. Please stop tagging me.

Oh FFS, answer some questions about your claims.

Earlier you admitted that enslavement happens: ➽ By force.
You also stated: ➽ But that doesn’t mean force is always bad.

⚡Is using force to enslave people moral?⚡

[Dale Eastman]

Scratch a libertarian, and underneath you’ll see an authoritarian demanding you answer his questions.

Ask a coward a question about their claims and they won't answer because the question brings attention to the fact that their claim is bullshit.

[Dale Eastman]

Coward?
You think it takes any bravery to talk shit on Facebook?
Good lord, get a life.
You’re just offering nothing but the usual cookie cutter nonsense from libertarians who have been blinkered by gurus and do nothing but parrot the same things, usually in the form of questions.
Been to this rodeo many, many times, and it’s just neither interesting nor entertaining anymore.
I have no interest in reliving Groundhog Day.

➽ You’re just offering nothing but the usual cookie cutter nonsense from libertarians who have been blinkered by gurus and do nothing but parrot the same things, usually in the form of questions.

I find your presentment of your thoughts fascinating.

You make claims without evidence.
You refuse to present evidence for your claims.
You spew words and refuse to define what YOU specifically mean by the words you use.
You reject my questions about your claims.
You reject my questions about your evidence.
You reject my questions about what you mean when you use any specific word.
You do as many other people do, you try to pigeon hole me into one of your predefined labels.

➽ nonsense from libertarians

Since you denigrate "libertarians" I assume you mean to imply that what ever they are, you are not. Since the base word is "liberty" and I do know what that word means, you have presented yourself as being against liberty.

I don't know what a "libertarian" is... Because I'm not into pigeon hole labels like you are. I don't know what YOU mean when you use the word "libertarian", That's why I ask questions such as this one:

What are the specific traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of "libertarian" as YOU use the word?

➽ You think it takes any bravery to talk shit on Facebook?

Since you talk shit on Fecalbook, answer your own question coward.

It takes bravery to answer questions you know will prove you wrong.
It also takes bravery to take a moral stance.
Which means it take bravery to answer questions about your moral stance.

Earlier you admitted that enslavement happens: ➽ By force.
You also stated: ➽ But that doesn’t mean force is always bad.

⚡Is using force to enslave people moral?⚡