JW

[Dale Eastman]

Synaptic Sparks
YDOM!

YDOM is a statement of the fact that You Don't Own Me.

YDOM; You don't own me; No human in government owns any other human; The artificial entity called government owns no human;

Thus no human calling themselves an Officer, Agent, or Employee of government has any right to rule, moral or otherwise.

Embrace that you own you; embrace that nobody else owns you; embrace YDOM! or continue to be told, "Pick cotton or get the whip."

YDOM! is your mind's armor against those who would attempt to rob you of your life, liberty, property or any of your other rights. However, YDOM is useless if you are a coward.

YDOM is true whether you are saying it to me, to your neighbor, or to any Officers, Agents, or Employees of government.

For those having a hard time accepting this truth, I ask, Why do you believe another human has a right to own you? Why do you believe another human has a higher claim on your life, liberty, property or any of your rights than you do?

Brainwashed belief often overrides critical thought and logical thinking. How were you convinced that you don't own you; that somebody else owns you?

If "All humans have equal rights." then no human has rights that are higher than any other human's rights. You don't own me dovetails with this truth exactly.

Frederick Douglass, an articulate black man, an elegant thinker, and an actual former slave, has written:

    I have found that, to make a contented slave, it is necessary to make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken moral and mental vision, and, as far as possible, to annihilate the power of reason. He must be able to detect no inconsistencies in slavery; he must be made to feel that slavery is right...

How then, was your moral and mental vision darkened? How were you made to feel that your enslavement is right?

Might this have started with conditioning you to only use a toilet on the school's schedule, or to get special permission from an instructor to use the toilet during unapproved times? Is this not a government claim, via your grade school teacher (a government employee) that government owns your urinary bladder and your large intestine and you are only allowed to evacuate them with government permission? Would this not be a perfect way to start training a human to be a slave?

Do you find no inconsistency in the government denying you permission to do the bodily functions of life in the Land of Liberty unless it's on the government's terms? Does this sound reasonable to you?

I feel like "you don't own me" is not the best it could be, because it's a negative rather than a positive ... Why would you choose "you don't own me" over something like "you own yourself" or "I am the only one who owns myself"?

Is YDOM a statement of fact?

Dale Eastman seems to me to be a factual enough statement...

When one person treats another as if the first person owns the second person, the only thing that "should" need to be said is "You don't own me."

Agree? Disagree? Why?

I feel like that would certainly not be the best thing to say in every such case. It might be more appropriate to say that nothing "should" "need" to be said at all. In my mind, "fuck off," is an equal contender... Perhaps even preferable...

You and I are not imagining the same scenario. This is my fault.

You've split the topic. I will address this first.
➽ It might be more appropriate to say that nothing "should" "need" to be said at all.

I'm a Boomer. I've been around for awhile. I have found, quite often, what goes without saying NEEDS to be said. Overlooked and important supporting points to the topic discussion at hand.

The reason YDOM must be said is because some people act as if they own others and some people act like slaves as if they are owned by others.

Another split.
➽ I feel like that would certainly not be the best thing to say in every such case.

Every such case?
This failure to communicate is mine.

Every case is one human ordering another around just like a slave.
There are two subcategories of cases:
When the order issuing human is your neighbor;
When the order issuing human is a government agent.

➽ In my mind, "fuck off," is an equal contender... Perhaps even preferable...

I disagree. "Fuck off" conveys no righteous reason for the refusal to obey, nor does it state a self-evident truth (that in my opinion needs to be shouted from the roof tops).

https://www.facebook.com/groups/284517977025750/posts/546481754162703/?comment_id=547170280760517&reply_comment_id=547865227357689

[Dale Eastman]

So, it needs to be said, because they are acting as if it is not so, but it is a self-evident truth... But why are you saying it? Why does it need to be said? Is the purpose to make the other person realize that they are acting immorally?

➽ why are you saying it? Why does it need to be said?
I repeat: I have found, quite often, what goes without saying NEEDS to be said.

➽ but it is a self-evident truth... But why are you saying it?
If you attempt to take my life, I have a right to take your life to end your threat to me.

Anti-gun idiots, government agents and their tools in the press do not like that self-evident truth. Neither do the average idiot cowards that have been brainwashed to not like it.

I reject my government indoctrination that the only way to be safe is to call the government's goons, a.k.a. the police, who provably do NOT have a duty to protect. I have not read the book Dial 911 and Die. I don't need to because I understand the logic.

➽ Is the purpose to make the other person realize that they are acting immorally?
Yes... Among other reasons.

Another quote from Frederick Douglass, an articulate black man, an elegant thinker, and an actual former slave:
𝓟𝓸𝔀𝓮𝓻 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓬𝓮𝓭𝓮𝓼 𝓷𝓸𝓽𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱𝓸𝓾𝓽 𝓪 𝓭𝓮𝓶𝓪𝓷𝓭. 𝓘𝓽 𝓷𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻 𝓭𝓲𝓭 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓲𝓽 𝓷𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻 𝔀𝓲𝓵𝓵. 𝓕𝓲𝓷𝓭 𝓸𝓾𝓽 𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽 𝔀𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓪𝓷𝔂 𝓹𝓮𝓸𝓹𝓵𝓮 𝔀𝓲𝓵𝓵 𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓮𝓽𝓵𝔂 𝓼𝓾𝓫𝓶𝓲𝓽 𝓽𝓸 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔂𝓸𝓾 𝓱𝓪𝓿𝓮 𝓯𝓸𝓾𝓷𝓭 𝓸𝓾𝓽 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓮𝔁𝓪𝓬𝓽 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓼𝓾𝓻𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓲𝓷𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔀𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓰 𝔀𝓱𝓲𝓬𝓱 𝔀𝓲𝓵𝓵 𝓫𝓮 𝓲𝓶𝓹𝓸𝓼𝓮𝓭 𝓾𝓹𝓸𝓷 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓶, 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓼𝓮 𝔀𝓲𝓵𝓵 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓾𝓮 𝓽𝓲𝓵𝓵 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝔂 𝓪𝓻𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱 𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻 𝔀𝓸𝓻𝓭𝓼 𝓸𝓻 𝓫𝓵𝓸𝔀𝓼, 𝓸𝓻 𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱 𝓫𝓸𝓽𝓱. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓵𝓲𝓶𝓲𝓽𝓼 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝔂𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓽𝓼 𝓪𝓻𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓬𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓮𝓭 𝓫𝔂 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓮𝓷𝓭𝓾𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓬𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝓱𝓸𝓼𝓮 𝔀𝓱𝓸𝓶 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝔂 𝓸𝓹𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓼.”

𝓦𝓸𝓻𝓭𝓼, 𝓫𝓵𝓸𝔀𝓼, or both. YDOM.

you have found, quite often, what goes without saying NEEDS to be said, why? Why does it NEED to be said?

The purpose of the saying (among other things) is to make the person realize that they are acting immorally? Do you think that bringing that self-evident truth to the forefront of their thoughts while they are attempting to act immorally will make them realize that they are acting immorally? Do you think it's likely to make them stop acting immorally? Is the realization important without the stopping or is the purpose of the realization just to make them stop? (I knew a person on the internet who was willing to concede that taxation was theft, but he was insistent that theft was the most morally sound thing to do... Interesting fella...)

I'm finding you to be an interesting fella on the internet.

Mostly because I don't know where you're coming from, nor do I understand what you are attempting to present by your continuing challenges to what I present.

YDOM. Followed by 𝓦𝓸𝓻𝓭𝓼, 𝓫𝓵𝓸𝔀𝓼, or both.

Here's 4,000 words. Your reaction will be telling.

file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/2022/NLtheRight2Resist.png

(I like it)

https://www.facebook.com/groups/284517977025750/posts/546481754162703/?comment_id=547170280760517&reply_comment_id=548531247291087

[Dale Eastman]

Did you know that behaviors can be definitively identified as either wronging another or being a victimless behavior? #NaturalLaw

You close your eyes and roll a bowling ball down a hill... (This post just reminded me about a conversation I had with a friend in college. One that led me to accept more of a "grey area," or, "spectrum," mindset while I was a very "black and white" minded person.)

➽ You close your eyes and roll a bowling ball down a hill...

If it harms another you deliberately did harm.

that's not the way "deliberately" works.

In the scenario you painted...
The choice to roll the ball down the hill is deliberate.
The choice to ignore the potential harmful results is deliberate.
The choice to do an action that has the potential to do harm is deliberate.

Therefore any resultant harm is deliberate.
Hazardous Materials transporting rules...
Eliminate the hazard.
Mitigate the hazard.
Communicate the hazard.

deliberately performing an action doesn't necessarily mean deliberately causing the results of that action.

Actions cause reactions and results.

Putting one round in a revolver, spinning the revolving cylinder, aiming the gun at another person, and squeezing the trigger gives you a 1 in six, or a probability of 16.7%, chance of causing something bad to happen.

In such as situation, you have caused the bad results.

Please stop this trolling.

I'm not trolling; you're making radical assumptions about the knowledge of the bowling ball roller and the surrounding conditions. I would agree with your assessment about 16.7% being an unacceptable risk to take with another person's life (assuming that's the point you were making). But at what percent does it become acceptable? And what about all the (infinite) cases where percentages cannot be known, and could only be guessed at with incomplete knowledge? In those cases, would you say that a unanimous ruling of 12 peers should determine morality? Or ...?

Again, I do not understand your challenges to my comments.

A bowling ball is not a basket ball is not a tennis ball.
Nor is it a cannon ball or a lead projectile.

I am now assuming that YOU are the bowling ball roller.
You are correct, I don't know what YOUR knowledge as the bowling ball roller is. You failed to indicate where you where rolling the ball... Other than from atop a hill. You failed to describe the surrounding conditions.

➽ I would agree with your assessment about 16.7% being an unacceptable risk to take with another person's life But at what percent does it become acceptable?

Really?

➽ And what about all the (infinite) cases where percentages cannot be known, and could only be guessed at with incomplete knowledge?

While that IS an excellent question and path of inquiry, it has nothing to do with YOUR assessment of risk to others while you are atop that hill.

Morality... Yes. That is the backdrop of this discussion. If I don't want some thing done to me, It is immoral for me to do it to others, thus making it immoral for others to do to me.

Your scenario is NO DIFFERENT than shooting a gun in the air.

That is why I immediately challenged your scenario.

yes, really.

➽ But at what percent does it become acceptable?

Image Cap'n What we have here is a failure to communicate.

"acceptable" to whom? If that ball caused any injury to life, liberty, or property, and it was known that you were the ball roller, you would be responsible for the repair to the injured party upon demand by the injured party. If you demurred and refused negotiations then the injured party, or their assigns, have a perfect Nature's Law right to take the repair from you in proportion to the injury regardless of your motivations, intentions, or mischance. Nemo me immune lacessit.

acceptable to the person being asked that question.

So, in the case of rolling a bowling ball down a hill, would an injured party have a right to take repair from the roller because rolling a bowling ball down a hill seems like something that could result in an injury? What if instead of rolling a bowling ball it was something like, I dunno... Talking... What if talking out loud was the thing that caused the injury? Are all accidents ascribable to a deliberate immoral party?

nope, not changing the scenario. You gave a hypothesis, I answered. We are dealing with actions that have consequences. Slander (words) are injurious and has consequence as does libel. Your last question: No.

https://scontent-ord5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/324841805_3527001250879262_7028865096631969669_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=rLga9aW_eucAX81FInX&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-1.xx&oh=00_AfBEW8ZNJDvDiEvjqGLwr7PzGTbo66RXPNOJ0iUibSKk9Q&oe=63C27CA5

https://scontent-ord5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/325200626_710472290592768_6798404343069312257_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=cy3ViBjgd2sAX_V1FaO&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-1.xx&oh=00_AfDU3qEvvIpNwzrzwQcevnLOTUhZ26UkIOe1UmWD6U2zIQ&oe=63C3006F

All actions have consequences... Even thoughts are actions, really...

I like your graphics, but they twist words in ways that I've never encountered those words before, and I'm not comfortable in the slightest defining words like, "property" to include ideas like, "rights." Also, I'm not sure I can keep your definition in mind when interacting with you. But I could try... So, when does an accident *not* have an ascribable deliberate immoral party?

(I wasn't talking about slander or libel, but those are also interesting cases to examine... I was talking about perhaps someone's talking could distract a person, maybe, and cause an accident. Or the vibrations rattle a precarious knife off the edge of a table which then penetrates another's foot...)

1) you're at the top of a hill with a bowling ball. At the bottom of the hill is a shit-ton of people. You close your eyes and roll the bowling ball down the hill. You fully expect (unreasonably, I would say) to miss all of the people. Let's say your purpose for the experiment is to teach your child about gravity. Have you already done an immoral thing? The ball injures someone. Now does it become immoral?

2) The same scenario except there appears to be no people at the bottom of the hill. You've been on this hill 327 times, and have never had any reason to suspect any person (or their property, as far as you, or some number of seemingly reasonable people, could tell).

.... Ping pong ball...

Where does "gross negligence" come into play? Volenti non fit injuria? Walking around at the bottom of a hill? Gotta be careful there, yaknow? The bottom of the hill is where kinetic energy is maximized, and kinetic energy can do work. Talking and avalanches also... Is there an amount of noise that would be acceptable to make near a teetering avalanche?

Volenti non fit injuria is Latin for “to a willing person, it is not a wrong.” This legal maxim holds that a person who knowingly and voluntarily risks danger cannot recover for any resulting injury. This principle was the common-law basis for the assumption of the risk doctrine.

If you see a person at the top of a hill and they have a bowling ball, when would it be acceptable (if ever) to forcibly prevent them from rolling the ball in the first place? At exactly what point does it become morally acceptable? Or stopping their bowling ball? Acting on their property when you're not guaranteed it would actually do any harm? Just gotta wait and see? Otherwise you're stealing their right to property? ...

https://www.facebook.com/groups/284517977025750/posts/549317590545786/?comment_id=549737000503845&reply_comment_id=551774686966743

1. words are not "twisted" in graphics. 2 Don't care about your comfort level. Your word wrangling reminds me of the rabbis arguing over minutiae, hair splitting definitions in the Talmud to "legalize" harm to another person. Say what you mean and mean what you say. The graphics stand as is. Try one of your hair-splitting justifications for wrong doing and you will receive some real world consequences for your wrng actions. You argue from a human legalistic theoretical situation to obfuscate and dilute Nature's immutable Law. A typical woke, Utilitarian, democratic Marxist, Critical Theory, relativistic bias.
https://scontent-ord5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/324877220_650249003542481_3744725921512324889_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=TWzl1tRMCygAX8yXBkf&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-1.xx&oh=00_AfCrXpU82BV-0kXsMwyYTzDDXepMbnrbP_JWaDdlbHWCpQ&oe=63C342EB

So then... You have nothing to offer? Thanx. 😘

https://scontent-ord5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/324580843_3456776537876777_3265053920693326732_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=z8q24uQBuYYAX8M5BX6&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-1.xx&oh=00_AfCx7SQ42KvBvbh6O6vFNdyplv3PNtaeGS-ccnLVulFTpg&oe=63C31454

➽ All actions have consequences... Even thoughts are actions, really...

Digesting yesterday's food is an action also. Your soon to be turds passing through your intestines and you cogitations passing through your mind have no affect on anyone else until externalized.
In short, I reject the quoted thought as if its words were never uttered (written/posted).

➽ words in ways that I've never encountered those words before

I'm taking the liberty of presenting those words as their concept decoded in my mind:
You stated you have never seen or thought about the concepts those Natural Law words present.

Being harmed by another is an actionable event; More accurately, being harmed by another is a REactionable event. If you harm another, you owe them recompense. In other other words: An eye for an eye; a reaction for an action.

➽ I'm not sure I can keep your definition in mind when interacting with you.

Myself, I will attempt to temper my reactions to what you post because of that admission, though in placing this sentence after having written my next 5 sentences. TW?

➽ 1) you're at the top of a hill with a bowling ball. At the bottom of the hill is a shit-ton of people. You close your eyes and roll the bowling ball down the hill. You fully expect (unreasonably, I would say) to miss all of the people.

Who the fuck is "you"? I wouldn't expect such stupid shit from a Down's syndrome person.
More to my point, why the fuck are you stretching to reach what-ever-the-fuck your objective is. You're going to fall off that ladder if you keep reaching so far off balance. <End WTF rant>

I am editing your words in my quote thereof.

➽ 1) [𝐼'𝑀] at the top of a hill with a bowling ball. At the bottom of the hill is a shit-ton of people. [𝐼] close [𝑀𝒴] eyes and roll the bowling ball down the hill. [𝐼] fully expect (unreasonably, I would say) to miss all of the people.

➽ Let's say [𝑀𝒴] purpose for the experiment is to teach [𝑀𝒴] child about gravity. Have [𝐼] already done an immoral thing?

Did your child's mother ∱∪⊂k a moron? In other words, What is the intelligence level of the would-be "teacher"? Would the teacher's action pass a "reasonable person" test?

➽ The ball injures someone. Now does it become immoral?

I am aghast at that question.
◎ Troll
◎ Stupid
◎ Both
◉ I'm not going to present which I have actually selected.

➽ 2) The same scenario except there appears to be no people at the bottom of the hill. You've been on this hill 327 times, and have never had any reason to suspect any person (or their property, as far as you, or some number of seemingly reasonable people, could tell).

In this case, there is no reasonable expectation of doing harm. I can go down a nearby road (road A) that intersects with another road (road B). About 10 feet off of road A there are signs marking the edge of the range of the gun club on road B.

Military basic training. "IS THERE ANYONE DOWN RANGE? IS THERE ANYONE DOWN RANGE?" I don't remember the next announcement. Maybe, "Fire at will." (Poor William.)

You did NOT specify such conditions in the original scenario you drafted.

IF you did harm in such a case, was there a warning down range, down hill, giving a safety notice? Humanity has even come up with a warning symbols... Some even available for use on shitbook: ⚠ ⛔ 🚫 ☠ ☢ ☣

➽ Where does "gross negligence" come into play?

Where? At the bottom of the hill. When? The moment you fail to post warnings prior to using the hill as down range.

➽ Volenti non fit injuria?

Absent you posting warnings down range, you bringing this up is just you muddying the waters.

Walking around at the bottom of a hill? Gotta be careful there, yaknow?

More mud with a touch of BS.

➽ Talking and avalanches also... Is there an amount of noise that would be acceptable to make near a teetering avalanche?

Off topic tangent. I accuse you of D⁶ - Dishonest attempts to Distract, Deflect, Divert, Disrupt, and/or Derail.
I decline to follow this Red Herring.

➽ If you see a person at the top of a hill and they have a bowling ball, when would it be acceptable (if ever) to forcibly prevent them from rolling the ball in the first place? At exactly what point does it become morally acceptable? Or stopping their bowling ball?

Do I see ANYONE DOWN RANGE?

➽ Acting on their property when you're not guaranteed it would actually do any harm?

What conclusion would a reasonable person come to?

➽ Otherwise you're stealing their right to property?

Their right to action and their right to use their property as they see fit ends the moment it harms or reasonably can be understood to be about to harm another.

This series of posts indicates to me that you are not a "moral" person.

[Dale Eastman]

there is plenty to offer and it is on the table. You are the one who is ignoring knowledge (ignorance).
So does your wife Liu Yuejiao know how you rationalize and parse meanings? Maybe your wedding vows mean less than she thinks they do? Maybe that "until death-do-us-part" means her demise by bowling ball? Or, will your daughter learn that her daddy doesn't really mean what he says if it is inconvenient or his whims change on the wind to protect his self-interest. After all, "love" means many things to many people and is it their fault that they take you at your words?

Dale Eastman despite your ignoring almost everything I asked (in the future you don't have to *say* that you're going to ignore some piece of what I said. Just ignoring it takes less time and energy), and despite your best attempts, you gave me something worth paying any mind to:

Giving warnings (sometimes?) can absolve an actor of the consequences of their actions? Whether or not the warnings are noticed? Exactly how noticable would *you* say they have to be before the actor is absolved? "Reasonably noticable" by whose standards? Would "some proportion of apparently reasonable people" work? Which proportion? 12/12 random people? Or maybe 100/100 average(ish) people? Or a million out of a million? Or 9,999/10,000? Where do *you* draw the line for how to determine whether something *seems* reasonable? Does it just have to be reasonable to *you*? Is "Natural Law" made up by each individual or is there some type of consensus?

I would say it's inappropriate to creep on someone's Facebook profile in order to drag their family into a political discussion, but you do you, boo.
I'm not ignoring anything you guys are saying. I'm trying to see if there's anything you guys have to tell me that's worth hearing, and mostly I'm just getting flak for asking questions that you guys apparently take offense to? It seems like you guys are taking offense to my questions, and judging me for even asking them. As if by asking the questions I've told you anything about my own beliefs, and apparently the beliefs that you imagine me having are extremely distasteful to you... And me.

Boo Hoo for you. Not a discussion of politics, the affairs of a city, or government, or the legalistic man's (f)laws used to justify injury to the individual. This is about Nature's Law and its application to life. About rights and wrongs, injury and rectification, and ultimately about justice and restoring the balance of equal worth to the injured. Your family wasn't dragged into this other than citing them to frame a question about your behavior and character. You whine about about us questioning your questions, yet you don't answer the questions proffered to you.
"So then... You have nothing to offer? Thanx." I'll leave you with one question to answer: Do you, or do you not, agree with and believe in the 7 self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence?

https://scontent-ord5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/325142194_577171953780712_5652819558619473302_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=Ur_RjdojOTAAX8yBLrr&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-1.xx&oh=00_AfAXnWChiAFolqZcIViqDj0vNoOsDSZ3Ak47fbfaCaYxTg&oe=63C2F126

If you are truly interested I suggest you read Natural Law by Lysander Spooner.

You guys seem to be assuming (incorrectly) my own beliefs or "position"... Here's what I'm here for:

In my mind, there is a spectrum of human activity.

On one side of the spectrum, you could call it "evil" or "immoral" (I would), there are things that are destructive, and/or things that break your "Natural Law" (I'm still not sure I have a solid grasp on "Natural Law", but it seems like a concept I've had in my mind before, but I didn't use that name for it... I don't recall if I used a name for it... Maybe just a description, which was loosely, "no victim, no crime"), so, actions which create a victim (although I would have a hard time calling an action "immoral" or "evil" just because a bad thing happened to a person as a result... Seems like intent comes into play somewhat...)

On the other side of the spectrum is "good". I would say that "good" like "morally good" should be reserved for actions which help people (including oneself).

There should certainly be some space in the middle for neutral behavior that doesn't appear to transgress on the rights of others, is effectually neither constructive nor destructive... Some people get really weird with this 'neutral' territory I would carve out... e.g. "anyone who is not actively doing good is doing evil" or "you're either with us or you're against us" or "inaction is the same as negative action" or "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" (that's a joke, but a good song)

So, there's the spectrum of human activity I have in my mind (if you guys want to know, rather than assuming):

Evil --- Neutral --- Good

Most people seem to be okay with this delineation, and I can come up with examples that fall into those categories so well that most people will agree that those examples fall into those categories. But notice that I don't say, "all people."

So, what I'm interested in, is where people draw the lines, and why. If we all agree that caving in a baby's skull with a bowling ball is an evil act, then I'm not interested in examining that, because we all already agree. But if someone says it's not an evil act, I'm interested in examining their reasoning. So, I've (in past conversations) come up with situations which I can change details and put them on the spectrum, and people seem to agree (usually) on where they fall on the spectrum, relative to the other examples, but different people draw different lines as to where the evil becomes neutral. So I like to examine the reasoning behind those delineations.

Here's the game: start with an extreme example of evil, then slowly dial it toward neutral until someone says, "there! Right there! Now this is no longer an evil act." Once you find the line, then you ask why? Why is the line right there? Why isn't it a little to the left or a little to the right? In my experience playing this game (it's like a "thought experiment" kinda like a "game") people often choose what I would call arbitrary lines, but their lines are often dictated by their values, and then by how much they value their values relative to one another...

If you guys don't want to do that with me, that's fine. You don't have to play with me. IDGAF. But you should really stop making radical assumptions about where *I* draw the lines, and *why* I draw them there, and my values. I'm just asking questions...

s this book by Lysander Spooner like the thing that defines the term? I've heard of Lysander Spooner before, but never read anything (except maybe quotes here and there.) Is he like the "creator" ("founder"?) of "Natural Law"?

I would attempt to answer any earnest question that seemed like it deserved an answer (i.e. it lead somewhere). I don't have a lot of time or will to address every insulting question you have for me.

I don't know if I'd say I agree with those 7 things, but I like them a lot. Even if I did say I agreed with them all, I'm not sure that they each mean the same thing to both you and me... I think I already attempted to address this in another thread, and I think you insulted me for it...

judging by your most recent graphic, I don't think I like the idea of "Natural Law." But I'll definitely put that Spooner book on my list.