CG

[Dale Eastman]

lawlessness and vigilante Justice? Interesting… I prefer facts, evidence and actual justice.

➽ I prefer facts, evidence and actual justice.

Me too.

Schooling: What you have become accustomed to

When the Ruling Class makes rules about what others should read, that's clearly an attempt to make others think and believe what the Ruling Class wants inculcated in the minds of the Ruled (Slave) Class. In a word, Brainwashing. You've not been taught how to think. You've been taught what to think. Scratch that. You've been taught what to regurgitate on demand. How could you know that what you've been indoctrinated to believe is bad logic or lies if you've never observed good logic and truth for comparison?

A well known point is that the earliest things learned are the hardest things to unlearn. I'll just gloss over the concept of these next two words: Truancy Laws. Give your children to the Ruling Class for free public schooling, or be punished (harmed) by the Ruling Class a.k.a. the Government or State.
[...]
The putrid rot that now passes for schooling is meant to program what to think, not how to think. If a human is taught how to think, then that person would recognize the contradictory ideas they were taught to think (believe). For example; The corrupt schooling system does not focus on these three topics (as presented) so the logic of these presentations are never examined for veracity:

If all were created equal, then none can have a right to rule another.
Rulers and Leaders are NOT the same. The meaning of Leader has been corrupted. A voter is not voting for a Leader. Voting does NOT elect a leader. Leaders do not need laws that allow them to send goons with guns to harm other humans for their refusal to follow or obey the elected Rulers. Voters elect rulers from the choices presented by the Ruling Class.
Anarchy literally means No Rulers. The meaning of Anarchy has been corrupted to mean chaos, violence, and antisocial actions.
https://naturallawmatters.net/Accustomed-To-The-Forms.html

Dale Eastman without a government to provide the small protection we have, religious theocracies would actually enslave us all.
Like this isn’t just some possibility, it is an actuality.
Look at what they already preach.

➽ Dale Eastman without a government to provide the small protection we have, religious theocracies would actually enslave us all.

Your belief in government is actually a religious belief as well.

My evidence and proof of this is your willful failure to address the points I posted. So being the pedantic asshole I am, I'm placing them in front of you again. And then some more. Numbered to keep track of willful ignorance.

If all were created equal, then none can have a right to rule another.
❶ Admit or deny?

Rulers and Leaders are NOT the same.
❷ Admit or deny?

A voter is not voting for a Leader. Voting does NOT elect a leader.
❸ Admit or deny?

Leaders do not need laws that allow them to send goons with guns to harm other humans for their refusal to follow or obey the elected Rulers.
❹ Admit or deny?

Voters elect rulers from the choices presented by the Ruling Class.
❺ Admit or deny?

When the Ruling Class makes rules about what others should read, that's clearly an attempt to make others think and believe what the Ruling Class wants inculcated in the minds of the Ruled (Slave) Class.
❻ Admit or deny?

➽ religious theocracies would actually enslave us all.
Like this isn’t just some possibility, it is an actuality.

§7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

The Federal Government will fine $25,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
❼ Admit or deny?

Government will harm you if you don't pay it.
❽ Admit or deny?

Government forces people to pay it taxes.
❾ Admit or deny?

A slave is a human whose owner's free will overrides the slave's free will.
❿ Admit or deny?

Q. If taking 100% of someone's labour and free will is slavery, at what percentage is it NOT slavery...?
A. 0%
𝟙𝟙 Admit or deny?

I just spent way to much time answering about half these questions… then I realized this is an absolute straw man bullshit I’m not gonna waste my time with.

1. I don’t answer yes no questions.
2 you literally go on a giant ruler “im an edgey anarchism’s that doesn’t wanna pay taxes” tangent.

So ya im not gonna waste my breat any further with someone who’s entire position is that there should be no government. I get it, you hate government. Your position will never change, so please spare me the torture of reading your same old tired arguments.
We get it, I promise you. We get it. You think you are superior to everyone who supports government.
Now please fuck off. Your thought process is boring, tired, over used and entirely devoid of the reasoning for law.

Me:
Scrolls up.
Checks group.
"Identified Thinkers 2"
Scrolls down.
Ponders CG's fear of answering my probing questions.

Speculation: CG having read all the questions now knows to answers will expose him as an emotional non-thinker.

➽ 1. I don’t answer yes no questions.

Translation: You don't like being tied down to one point at a time.

➽ So ya im not gonna waste my breat any further with someone who’s entire position is that there should be no government.

For an alleged thinker, your willful ignorance of what government actually is, as presented in my questions... Coward afraid to have your beliefs exposed as the indoctrinated BS that it is.

➽ then I realized this is an absolute straw man bullshit

An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.

A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.

You apparently have no clue between a straw man and a potential thread hijack.

You wrote:
➽ I prefer facts, evidence and actual justice.

I gave you  facts, evidence and proof of government INjustice. Were you lying when you said you prefer facts and evidence?

➽ Your position will never change, so please spare me the torture of reading your same old tired arguments.

Arguments with question marks that you refuse to answer.

➽ We get it, I promise you. We get it.

Did you get permission from each member of this group of "we" to speak / write for them?

Who, specifically, is this We, other than you?

➽ Your thought process is boring, tired, over used and entirely devoid of the reasoning for law.

What is law?

Dale Eastman boring- straw man. Nty

I'm not interested in a flame war with a bored dumb fuck pretending to be a thinker.

Dale Eastman just screaming “they use force, which means they are evil people that wanna rule me” isn’t thinking.
Lol it’s literally the absence of thought.
It’s the thinking equivalent of being a pissed off teenager that doesn’t want a bedtime.

See you seen to forget I’ve had this same conversation with you at least 15 times over a 6 year period. It’s boring.

The anarchist movement hasn’t presented a new argument in like 5 decades. We get it dude, you guys don’t like government.
Your mindset isn’t new or developed from some new understanding.
It is the exact same boring argument it was back when I use to argue it.

It’s boring. God is it boring…you are literally just arguing the same tired boring point over and over and over. When someone doesn’t agree, they are a statist that likes to use force against people. Literally a gas lighting self righteous, I’m the moral superior person garbage…. For over 6 years I’ve had to read this garbage from you people.
I’m fucking done arguing it.
If you don’t like government, go find a fucking hole somewhere to create your own colony.

But the absence of a position isn’t worth my time.
This is the last message I will send in this regard.
Deuces

➽ I prefer facts, evidence and actual justice.

That statement is provably you lying to yourself.

My change in style to using "Admit or deny?" has proven very effective at winnowing out the chaff... The indoctrinated brainwashed emotional morons who have cognitive dissonance triggered by what I present.

Admit... or... Deny.

You just can not deny the numbered points I have presented because I have presented verifiable facts. If you did deny verifiable facts... So this exposes that you do NOT want to admit to the facts presented.

➽ Dale Eastman just screaming “they use force, which means they are evil people that wanna rule me” isn’t thinking.

You just implicitly denied that government uses force against its citizens.
𝟙𝟛 Admit or deny?

You just implicitly denied these three facts numbered 7,8,9.
𝟙𝟜 Admit or deny?

❼ The Federal Government will fine $25,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
❽ Government will harm you if you don't pay it.
❾ Government forces people to pay it taxes.

You have just implied it's okay with you for people to use force against you.
𝟙𝟝 Admit or deny?

By the way... THIS IS SCREAMING IN TEXT MESSAGES. I haven't been online as long as you. I was a late adopter of using the internet. I didn't get my email address and net access until 1996. Please be gentle, I'm still a virgin.

➽ Lol it’s literally the absence of thought.

Since you allege that you are a "Identified Thinker" I'm sure you can find out what "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur" means.

➽ See you seen to forget I’ve had this same conversation with you at least 15 times over a 6 year period. It’s boring.

Since I'm a Boomer with CRS, I can't deny that claim.

I would appreciate you providing one link where you and I interacted. I only need one link and then I'll admit to 15 interactions. If you can find the link to the oldest interaction, that would be great.

➽ So ya im not gonna waste my breat any further with someone who’s entire position is that there should be no government.

You've got that concept stuck in your head such that you are being prejudiced and biased to the point that you are willfully ignoring the prior points.

➽ The anarchist movement hasn’t presented a new argument in like 5 decades.

The members of this anarchist movement all agree on one point: The actual meaning of anarchy: "No Rulers."
𝟙𝟞 Admit or deny?

You assume that I am a member of the anarchist movement.
𝟙𝟟 Admit or deny?

➽ We get it dude

You imply you are a member of this group of "We."
𝟙𝟠 Admit or deny?

You do not have specific permission from each of the other members of this group of "We" to write and speak for the group as if you are the group.
𝟙𝟡 Admit or deny?

➽ Your mindset isn’t new or developed from some new understanding.

My mindset started with the verifiable facts of the evil acts that members of government do.

You have yet to admit to the lessor evil acts of government.
𝟚𝟘 Admit or deny?

➽ It is the exact same boring argument it was back when I use to argue it.

You just implied that you "WERE" an anarchist.
𝟚𝟙 Admit or deny?

𝟚𝟚 Did you present the evils that members of government do?

➽ you are literally just arguing the same tired boring point over and over and over.

You just can not deny the numbered points I have presented because I have presented verifiable facts. If you did deny verifiable facts... So this exposes that you do NOT want to admit to the facts presented.

➽ Your thought process is boring, tired, over used and entirely devoid of the reasoning for law.

These are your words.
𝟚𝟛 Admit or deny?

Rule 301. Presumptions in Civil Cases Generally
In a civil case, unless a federal statute or these rules provide otherwise, the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption.
Presumptions governed by this rule are given the effect of placing upon the opposing party the burden of establishing the nonexistence of the presumed fact, once the party invoking the presumption establishes the basic facts giving rise to it.

These words are contained within the titled rule.
𝟚𝟜 Admit or deny?

➽ When someone doesn’t agree, they are a statist that likes to use force against people.

You have neither admitted nor denied the verifiable facts I've presented. Failure to deny IS verification of the claim.
𝟚𝟝 Admit or deny?

➽ I’m fucking done arguing it.

Ignoring specific numbered points is admitting them per FRE301.
𝟚𝟞 Admit or deny?

Ignoring specific numbered points is NOT arguing them.
𝟚𝟟 Admit or deny?

In another thread:

So when Trump is spending the rest of his life in prison, are you tribalist gonna finally admit he’s a criminal pos, or are you gonna backfire effect and hold your beliefs harder?

Now I know why you refuse to answer my questions in that other thread. You're a communist lefty Votard. I had a discussion with another lefty in another group. It could have been with you, though I know it's not you.

Votard:
Last election we voted out evil, I would have voted for Mr Potato Head to get that gangster out of the White House.

Me:
No. You did not vote out evil. You voted for a different source of evil.

Votard:
nope, voted out evil, deal with it.

Me:
What, specifically, do you mean by the "evil" you voted out?

Votard:
🙄

Me:
You made the claim that you "voted out evil".
What, specifically, do you mean by the "evil" you voted out?
What did you vote out. Please be articulate in describing this evil.

Votard:
No, you know what I'm talking about. I dont explain the obvious to people, if you dont know then you're the problem.

Me:
You and I have bumped heads enough for you to know that I will not assume what another means when they use any particular word.
You, among other votards here, think I'm stupid and ignorant... So go with that. "Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do.
What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of this "evil" you claim to have voted out?
Why, specifically, do you think the other guy is evil incarnate and your guy is not?
As a Boomer, my life experience has taught me, when it goes without saying, or it is obvious, it NEEDS saying.
So lemme say something simple and obvious...
Your refusal to articulate what you mean, means you are NOT interested in bringing others to your beliefs and/or conclusions.
You claim I'm the problem and you are the one that refuses to explain what you mean.

Votard:
My refusal to articulate what I mean means I dont play games with people when they ask lame questions. If you dont understand what we just voted out was a memace than you're either one of these red hats, or just playing ignorant.

Me:
Whatever, you gasorminumplaz.

Votard:
Yeah, whatever. Maybe you might try watching the news, or the Jan 6th hearings.

Me:
Attributed to Voltaire, "If you wish to communicate, define your terms."
So how about you define your terms and communicate what you mean, you gazorminumplaz smurfing smurfed smurfer with a smurf smurfed up your smurf.

Votard:
No, this is silly. You know what I'm talking about.

Me:
You are a fucking coward who refuses to be specific and articulate.
Write plainly, boy. Nobody is going to read your mind.

Votard:
Lol, you're an ignorant red hat if you need to be told what the evil was we voted out of the White House.

Me:
No... My LOL... You're the Votard trying to claim a non-voter is supporting the side opposite of the one you support.
Now I ask again, What, specifically, do you mean by the "evil" you voted out?
What did you vote out. Please be articulate in describing this evil.
What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of this "evil" you claim to have voted out?
Why, specifically, do you think the other guy is evil incarnate and your guy is not?

Votard:
I ask you, do you news at all?

Me:
I ask you: Be concise; be articulate; State the "evil" you are so concerned about.
Stop being a fucking coward who refuses to plainly state what you mean.

Votard:
Please dont tag me anynmore, I'm through here.

Me:
You are through here because you are too stupid to plainly state what you wish to only imply. Fucking Votard¹.

¹ Votard
A Voting Retard that believes voting for the lessor of two evils isn't voting for evil.

Dale Eastman not what I said. But good job.
Do you even know what a communist is?

➽ Do you even know what a communist is?

I decline to follow that red herring and allow you to control the discussion to drag its focus away from your failures.

𝟚𝟠 Why should I not ignore your questions just like you ignore mine?

➽ not what I said.

I posted 573 words. 533 of those words was the transcript of my discussion with that Votard. 533 of those words had nothing to do with you other than for me to imply that you are as stupid as that Votard.

Of course those 533 words are "not what" you "said."

The first 40 words was what I wrote (said). So they are "not what" you "said" either.

𝟚𝟡 So just what exactly were you referring to with your 4 words ➽ not what I said?

➽ So when Trump is spending the rest of his life in prison, are you tribalist gonna finally admit he’s a criminal pos,

Those are your words.
𝟛𝟘 Admit or deny?

Your question implies you believe Trump is a criminal.
𝟛𝟙 Admit or deny?

Your question implies you are on the side opposite of the Trump supporting side.
𝟛𝟙 Admit or deny?

Your question implies you are on the side of Biden supporters.
𝟛𝟚 Admit or deny?

so you're saying that Conservatives are such sore losers, that when they get crushed in an election again..... they are gonna start a civil war over it.
You gonna participate in the killing of your countrymen?

➽ You gonna participate in the killing of your countrymen?

I hope I don't need to.

Those that support tyrants attempting to enslave other humans are themselves attempting to enslave others by proxy.

➽ I prefer facts, evidence and actual justice.

Yet you refuse to admit to the verifiable facts I have presented to you.

Don’t play victim you swine.

You refuse to peacefully co-exist.

➽ You refuse to peacefully co-exist.

You just implied that you will "peacefully co-exist."
𝟛𝟛 Admit or deny?

➽ Don’t play victim you swine.

This is not the words of somebody who wants to "peacefully co-exist."
𝟛𝟜 Admit or deny?

[Dale Eastman]

You are a coward.
You have no integrity.
You are not unbiased.

➽ You are a coward.
➽ You have no integrity.
➽ You are not unbiased.

SG Have you noticed this EEG Flat-liner likes to call others by his maiden name?