SH

[Dale Eastman]

https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid0nGbAcPam7WyWhLaWr6ZZPwP8dsueRYAPGvGJ5gBUJ2zu6BJx4yD2kteq4feEA87Al

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=851149186215764&set=gm.3314460482108521&idorvanity=1956067967947786

file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/FB%20related%20or%20used/doSH/315099590_5582416698503056_4354517781449167029_n.jpg

<Snarcasm>
You mean what SH was taught in school?
</Snarcasm>

😁

➽ [My sister] and I were both home schooled, or "unschooled". FYI. 😘

Yeah, but somehow we both went to college and saw a very different theater.
Part of the reason I didn't want to keep going and continued my self education instead.

I recall the discussion you and your sister had. I put my 2 cents in early in that thread. You wanted no interaction with me, so I just sat back and observed. Because of what you presented, this original post simply reminded me of your words. It is only because Debra did the original post that I recalled your words. Had it been anyone else in my community of liberty minded folks, I doubt I would have recalled your words.
Being reminded of how you lucked out of the government indoctrination centers, I find myself amazed at how, dare I say, inculcated the beliefs you presented were (and I assume still are).
You are not a member of the remnant... Dialog is if you will it.

Actually, this post wasn't directed to my sister (or anyone in particular), but I did remember the above referenced discussion when you commented here.

Googling a bunch of stuff which confirms your biases, and disregarding anything which causes cognitive dissonance, is NOT education. Having your core beliefs and values examined and challenged is good for you. It's good for your mind, it's good for your mental health, it's good for critical thinking, it's good for developing a well-rounded understanding of life and the world. I don't mean behind a screen, I mean face to face, real life, real actions with real consequences type of stuff.

If I had not fulfilled two degrees, I would never have studied some of the subjects I studied. I just wouldn't have, because those subjects were so foreign or obscure to me. I would never have had to think those thoughts, expand my mind the way I did. I loved every minute of my college experiences (pleural because I got my degrees a full decade apart), and plan on taking some classes this spring just for fun, and next fall I'm starting on a program to advance one of my degrees (either general science or biology, I haven't decided yet).

I really can't understand why learning a subject from a master of that subject is such a bad thing. J wants to learn to ride a horse, so I'm taking her to a stable with instructors who are experts in all things equine. Not to, say, some guy with a zebra in the back alley. Ya know?

The more you learn, the more you realize you know nothing. That's actually true. Chemistry and biology are beyond fascinating, but they are not a weekend read, if you know what I mean. No way in heck would I try to tackle that myself. And what would be the point? I can't actually get a job teaching or doing lab work being "self taught".

Whatever negative experience you had in college, I wish you could look beyond that and not paint everything with such a broad brush. I don't know what happened that made you feel so negative, but maybe the environment wasn't good. I don't know.

I really can't understand why learning a subject from a master of that subject is such a bad thing. Shat things exactly, are mainstream news casters master of?

Prussian Method of schooling.

Dale Eastman wow I'm flattered that I'm so memorable. 🤷🏼‍♀️ I think I remember you. You're that guy who uses a lot of words to say very little.

I'll take your reply as an intention to discuss "things". Thank you.

Use less words... Got it ✔

So if you don't understand the points I present, you need to ask me to clarify.

Of course, if you don't comprehend the point(s) I present, I will figure it out from any non-sequitur responses you post. If that happens I will be asking questions about what you mean with your words. So... Lots of questions back and forth to come to an understanding?

Are you for liberty or are you for slavery?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman look man, I've already had this exact same conversation about a thousand times with my sister. At this point, it's just tiring. I'm for a well-regulated government run by The People. I don't believe in black and white, right vs wrong. Nearly every single thing in life is shades of gray, nuance. There are almost no absolutes. Plus, y'all tend to change the definition of words to whatever fits your agenda. So when you ask a question like "are you for liberty, or are you for slavery", I tend to just roll my eyes and think "here we go again". Because it's not an either-or question. And anarchists love to paint everything in absolutes, in either-or, when almost nothing in life is absolute/either-or. At the same time, when stuck in a corner, y'all just move the goalposts. Get my drift? It's a fool's game. My position is that anarchy, especially in the US, is a very bad, terrible, awful idea, and that position won't change because I've already done the mental work required to determine what I think of it. Just read about what is happening in Iran right now and maybe you'll be more appreciative of the soil we stand on. I don't know. But I don't know you, you don't know me, and it's not my job to convince you of anything. And vice versa. The only reason I continue to have this exact same conversation with my sister over and over is because I love her and care about her welfare, along with the welfare of her husband and children. I want all of them safe. And nothing you can say is going to convince me that anarchy is safer than the extreme privilege we already have in this country.

Thank you for your reply.
You've given me much to work with.

➽ Plus, y'all tend to change the definition of words to whatever fits your agenda.

Please present your evidence that I am one of "y'all".

Gasorminumplaz.

A higher level educated person such as your self must surely be aware of what is referred to as "Voltaire's Admonition."

Paraphrased as: If you wish to communicate, first define your terms.

➽ Because it's [liberty or slavery] not an either-or question.

I understand why you take that position. So for this moment I agree with you. You are not aware of the connecting dots. So I cleave the question and focus on just the one half.

Are you for slavery?

[Dale Eastman]

I guess I wasn't clear. I was explaining to you why I'm not having a discussion with you. It's a waste of my time and energy. I'm wrapping presents and feeding brunch to my kids and have no desire to engage in yet another debate on a topic I am already well-informed about and know where I stand.

➽ I guess I wasn't clear.

You were VERY clear that you are FOR slavery and ENSLAVEMENT of humans.

[Dale Eastman]

Meaningless gif
✓ ✔ ✗

➽ Meaningless gif

I stated:
⚡You were VERY clear that you are FOR slavery and ENSLAVEMENT of humans.⚡

Your failure to deny, IS your admission that I am correct.

You're busy... I don't need any immediate responses. I can wait.
Just make sure you tag me when you do have time to engage.

[Dale Eastman]

>"Googling a bunch of stuff which confirms your biases, and disregarding anything which causes cognitive dissonance, is NOT education. "

\\ I agree. And I didn't. I learned something that greatly, and in some cases, completely contradicted what I thought I knew. I was just as statist as you...only I was on the other wing, but it was the same big, ugly bird.

>"I really can't understand why learning a subject from a master of that subject is such a bad thing. J wants to learn to ride a horse, so I'm taking her to a stable with instructors who are experts in all things equine. Not to, say, some guy with a zebra in the back alley. Ya know?"

\\ Actually that guy in the back alley with a zebra is way more of a master :3
I also didn't say I didn't want to learn from someone who wasn't a master. Also, things that are self evident should be discoverable in and of themselves.

>"The more you learn, the more you realize you know nothing. That's actually true. Chemistry and biology are beyond fascinating, but they are not a weekend read, if you know what I mean. No way in heck would I try to tackle that myself. And what would be the point? I can't actually get a job teaching or doing lab work being "self taught"."

\\ Yeah, I know I am quite stupid. I often wonder how I could be so stupid and still be breathing 😉
Actually I do think I am a slow learner, I've rejected and argued against a lot of what I now know to be true.
And you'd be very surprised how much respect you can get, especially in some fields, being self taught.

>"Whatever negative experience you had in college, I wish you could look beyond that and not paint everything with such a broad brush. I don't know what happened that made you feel so negative, but maybe the environment wasn't good. I don't know."

\\ I never said I had a bad experience, I said I saw a theater. See: Plato's allegory of the cave.
The rest of this post is more in response to things you said to Dale...

[Dale Eastman]

OP MEME:

When you've been down so many rabbit holes for more hours than you care to remember and the person you're arguing with says, "You need to do some research."

Why do I think of your sis when I read this?

🤔I don't know. 😜

Dale Eastman because deep down you know that spending hours poking around at spurious sources (that reinforce your preconceived ideas) on the internet is not "research".

I would love to have an honest discussion with you.
I'm all about Socratic Questions.
For instance: What preconceived ideas have you preconceived that I have?

Out of curiosity, what is your definition of acceptable research topic?

it isn't the ideas we are talking about. It is the method you use to reinforce what you want to believe. Confirmation bias and all that. Self-directed "research" is usually sorely weighted in the direction one was already leaning; rarely are learners objective and critical enough to change their stance, even when presented with mountains of evidence to the contrary of what they already believe. For example, I want to believe that eating organic food is better for me, so I Google selectively to find articles that back up my claim, and breeze past anything that refutes or suggests I may be wrong. We all have a tendency to do this, and recognizing that is incredibly important to maintaining an objective and critical mind.

again, it's not the topic, but the method of research.

Btw the word "research" is so overused and misused, IMHO. But that's another conversation.

[Dale Eastman]

𝓢: you know that spending hours poking around at spurious sources (that reinforce your preconceived ideas) on the internet is not "research"

Ah... I must call you on that specific assumption. You are simply wrong on that point.
What, specifically, are the "preconceived ideas" that you have preconceived that I have?
This is the second time I have inquired on this point.

This was the first inquiry:
𝓓: What preconceived ideas have you preconceived that I have?
𝓢: it isn't the ideas we are talking about. It is the method you use to reinforce what you want to believe.

I DO NOT WANT to believe what I believe. Ignorance is bliss and I have NOT been a blissful person going back to 2005 when I first started my website.

And that belief is? (Inquiry 2.1 not counted.)

𝓢: Confirmation bias and all that.

Yes, I understand what confirmation bias is.
I would like you to know that I actually seek out those with opposite beliefs and biases for discussion. You are one such person.
So... Interacting with you is not really me doing confirmation bias research is it. (Rhetorical. No Q mark)

𝓢: Self-directed "research" is usually sorely weighted in the direction one was already leaning;

Agreed.

𝓢: rarely are learners objective and critical enough to change their stance, even when presented with mountains of evidence to the contrary of what they already believe.

Physician heal thyself.

What do you 𝓫𝓮𝓵𝓲𝓮𝓿𝓮 slavery is?

So you DO believe that spending hours poking around at spurious sources (that reinforce your preconceived ideas) on the internet IS research? OK.

I don't' know what all your preconceived ideas are, considering how ambiguous they have appeared to be in the past. Plus I'm not one to assume what you believe in this moment. All I can respond to is your stated belief that "research" is apparently whatever you want it to be. Research is not merely gathering information. Research is not the rearrangement or restatement of known knowledge. Research is not rummaging around for hard-to-find information, or searching through records to discover what one does not previously know. Research is not transferring facts from one location to another. Research is a systematic and organized, step-by-step process that is used by researchers to find answers to questions or to solve problems. It is unbiased and it is not based on simply reading all the research that other people have done. This is why I never say "do your own research", because the word "research" has been hijacked by Google Academy students who think they know something because they have access to the internet. I prefer to say "educate yourself", since that implies closer to what we are actually doing when we read other peoples' works. With the caveat, of course, that we are actually reading something credible.

"I DO NOT WANT to believe what I believe. Ignorance is bliss and I have NOT been a blissful person going back to 2005 when I first started my website." Why don't you want to believe what you believe? What belief are you talking about? Natural Law seems pretty darn idealistic to me, so I imagine you are not talking about that.

"Yes, I understand what confirmation bias is.
I would like you to know that I actually seek out those with opposite beliefs and biases for discussion. You are one such person.
So... Interacting with you is not really me doing confirmation bias research is it. (Rhetorical. No Q mark)". Arguing with people on the internet, again, is not research. In fact, providing you an audience probably only reinforces your beliefs since you now get to subject someone to listening to your dogma.

I have attached an article you may find interesting. Or not. Up to you.

"What do you 𝓫𝓮𝓵𝓲𝓮𝓿𝓮 slavery is?" OK, I'll bite. Slavery is forcing people to work without pay. Selling human beings. Selling children while their mother screams for them. Forcing people to reproduce together to get the offspring wanted. Being fed only what is provided. Treating a certain class, color, or type of human as if they are animals. Worse than animals, in some cases.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-convince-someone-when-facts-fail/

Thank you for your reply.

Please 'scuse me for a moment while I read the page you graciously provided a link to.

Having, in fairness and respect for you as another human, read the article you linked, I am going to comment on the first paragraph of the article.

SA: 𝓗𝓪𝓿𝓮 𝔂𝓸𝓾 𝓮𝓿𝓮𝓻 𝓷𝓸𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓮𝓭 𝓽𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝔀𝓱𝓮𝓷 𝔂𝓸𝓾 𝓹𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓮𝓷𝓽 𝓹𝓮𝓸𝓹𝓵𝓮 𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱 𝓯𝓪𝓬𝓽𝓼 𝓽𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓪𝓻𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓻𝔂 𝓽𝓸 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓲𝓻 𝓭𝓮𝓮𝓹𝓮𝓼𝓽 𝓱𝓮𝓵𝓭 𝓫𝓮𝓵𝓲𝓮𝓯𝓼 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝔂 𝓪𝓵𝔀𝓪𝔂𝓼 𝓬𝓱𝓪𝓷𝓰𝓮 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓲𝓻 𝓶𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓼? 𝓜𝓮 𝓷𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻. 𝓘𝓷 𝓯𝓪𝓬𝓽, 𝓹𝓮𝓸𝓹𝓵𝓮 𝓼𝓮𝓮𝓶 𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓸𝓾𝓫𝓵𝓮 𝓭𝓸𝔀𝓷 𝓸𝓷 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓲𝓻 𝓫𝓮𝓵𝓲𝓮𝓯𝓼 𝓲𝓷 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓽𝓮𝓮𝓽𝓱 𝓸𝓯 𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓻𝔀𝓱𝓮𝓵𝓶𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓮 𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓲𝓷𝓼𝓽 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓶. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓼𝓸𝓷 𝓲𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓽𝓸 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝔀𝓸𝓻𝓵𝓭𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀 𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓬𝓮𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓭 𝓽𝓸 𝓫𝓮 𝓾𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓻 𝓽𝓱𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓽 𝓫𝔂 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓯𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓪.

I find the very first paragraph so ironic.

To be fair to you, the issue of what the specific conflicting data is has not been nailed down and agreed to as the point(s) of contention.

𝓢: I don't' know what all your preconceived ideas are, considering how ambiguous they have appeared to be in the past.

That is a fair FIRST impression... True. I agree with you...
In the past...

21 December:
𝓢: Because it's [liberty or slavery] not an either-or question.

𝓢: All I can respond SNIP!

I decline to follow that selection of Red Herrings.

𝓓: I DO NOT WANT to believe what I believe.
𝓢: Why don't you want to believe what you believe?

Let me clear up the communication error based upon my "ambiguous" appearance... Mea culpa.

I do not want to believe what logic has dictated to me as a conclusion to actually thinking about and analyzing information presented to me by living on planet Earth.

𝓢: What belief are you talking about?

Again, mea culpa. Not a belief... A conclusion... Several conclusions.

𝓢: Natural Law seems pretty darn idealistic to me, so I imagine you are not talking about that.

I'm just going to state at this time: You and I do NOT have an agreement as to what, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of Natural Law.

𝓢: In fact, providing you an audience probably only reinforces your beliefs since you now get to subject someone to listening to your dogma.

The fact you stated in that sentence is the fact that you stated your preconceived idea about what you assume is (my) dogma. The fact you stated is that your opinion is "..."

𝓢: Slavery is forcing people to work without pay. [...] Treating a certain class, color, or type of human as if they are animals. Worse than animals, in some cases.

I think we have a consensus if you do not find my meaning contradictory to yours.
𝔸 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕚𝕤 𝕒 𝕙𝕦𝕞𝕒𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕖 𝕠𝕨𝕟𝕖𝕣'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝.

𝓓:
𝓢:

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman being ambiguous and cryptic is a defense mechanism I realize, but you are never going to get your point across by being so deliberately obscure. Perhaps you didn't understand the article, or perhaps it caused you enough cognitive dissonance that you decided to reframe it to your liking. Either way, I didn't expect you to like it much, I just hoped that you might glean a glimmer of insight into your own bias. Oh well.

I won't respond to that kind of baiting, by the way, but I'll respond to your last question because it is relatively clear.

No, I don't agree with that definition of slavery. Ever see one of those logic problems that goes something like "If all As are Bs, and some Bs are Cs, are all Cs also As?". In this case, all slaves have another human imposing their will on them, but not all people imposing their will on others are slave owners (and not every person acquiescing to another's will is a slave). Every single human relationship that exists is in a constant flux of will. Parents/kids, employer/employee, doctor/patient, heck even the ticket counter at Disneyland. Of course the best example here is the employer/employee relationship, since an employee acquiesces to their employer's wishes. But in return, the employer must pay the employee. The employer must also ensure a safe workplace, provide benefits to full time employees, provide protection from workplace harassment, etc. And both the employer and employee are free to terminate the professional relationship. So while they both experience a give and take of wills, no one is a slave in this situation.

Dale Eastman I will add that you are 100% correct that we do not have an agreement regarding what natural law is. But it is very simple: you believe that natural law exists. I do not. It is no more persuasive or relevant than any other philosophy invented by mankind. Some people need philosophy or religion to help guide them in life, others do not. To insist that any one philosophy applies to all people is silly, since we can easily look around the world or even just our country to see that isn't true. Natural law seems to consume your entire existence, while it is simply noise in the background to most, same as any other philosophy or religion.

Since you have decided to engage, thank you.

I insist that you notify me of any thing I post that appears disrespectful of you.

𝓢: being ambiguous and cryptic is a defense mechanism I realize, but you are never going to get your point across by being so deliberately obscure.

I understand and agree with that. What you do not know just yet, is what this defense mechanism is about. I hope to apprise you of that so you will know why I have been ambiguous and cryptic. Just not yet.

𝓢: Perhaps you didn't understand the article, or perhaps it caused you enough cognitive dissonance that you decided to reframe it to your liking. Either way, I didn't expect you to like it much, I just hoped that you might glean a glimmer of insight into your own bias.

You and I are in a manner of speaking, getting to know one another. I am acutely aware of my bias(es). I am a square peg attempting to fit in the round hole of U.S. and World society. Yes Ma'am, ambiguous and cryptic yet again.

𝓢: No, I don't agree with that definition of slavery.

Apparently, not many do. Thank you for the admission, and more so for giving the reasons.

𝓢: In this case, all slaves have another human imposing their will on them, but not all people imposing their will on others are slave owners (and not every person acquiescing to another's will is a slave). Every single human relationship that exists is in a constant flux of will. Parents/kids, employer/employee, doctor/patient, heck even the ticket counter at Disneyland. Of course the best example here is the employer/employee relationship, since an employee acquiesces to their employer's wishes. But in return, the employer must pay the employee. The employer must also ensure a safe workplace, provide benefits to full time employees, provide protection from workplace harassment, etc. And both the employer and employee are free to terminate the professional relationship. So while they both experience a give and take of wills, no one is a slave in this situation.

I actually agree with everything you have written. Every concept stated is true.

But... (But is a connective that in essence, erases the prior words.)

You have NOT refuted my very specific set of words and their very specific concept.
I will now examine some your words in light of my definition: 𝔸 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕚𝕤 𝕒 𝕙𝕦𝕞𝕒𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕖 𝕠𝕨𝕟𝕖𝕣'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝.

𝓢: and not every person acquiescing to another's will is a slave

The spectrum of gray is 1% white and 99% black. to 99% white and 1% black. If partial black, not white. If partial enslaved, not free, not at liberty.
file:///C:/Users/daler/Pictures/Flat%20Earth/RJJ/Gradient.jpg

Wordnik: acquiesce: intransitive verb: To consent or comply passively or without protest: synonym: assent.

To consent, comply, or assent is a free will choice. To do the opposite is also a free will choice. Having that choice removed is enslavement.

𝓢: Of course the best example here is the employer/employee relationship, since an employee acquiesces to their employer's wishes.

Yes. They do. Yes. I did. And yes I still do.

But...

An employer won't have you whipped for refusing to pick cotton or for refusing to do any thing else you are commanded to do. An employer won't send men with guns to drag you back to the place you worked.

𝓢: I will add that you are 100% correct that we do not have an agreement regarding what natural law is. But it is very simple: you believe that natural law exists. I do not.

You and I agree that you and I do not agree. Fair enough.

You and I have not come to terms on what Natural Law is. To appropriate from Algebra, you and I do not agree on what ❎ is. You and I have not come to terms on what, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of ❎?

In order to not have this discussion spill into more back and forth, I am going to bracket my answers that I assume would be your answer. If I err, you should call me on that error immediately. If my assumption(s) are correct, continue reading.

Do you have a "right" to life? {Yes.}
Do you have a "right" to protect your life? {Yes.}
This question contains a small bit of a morality question.
Do you have a "right" to use the minimum defensive force necessary to stop the attacker from stealing your life?

Dale Eastman I'm a very straightforward person. I'm also a pragmatist. When people are cryptic and ambiguous, I feel that they are a)wasting my time, and b) probably attempting to manipulate/gaslight me.

I don't agree with the 99%/1% idea. And I bet that people who are actually enslaved wouldn't agree with it, either.

An employee who refuses to acquiesce, too, will be punished by being written up, lose their job, etc. So while it may seem as though an employee maintains free will, if you have ever worked, you might know that's not entirely true.

"You and I have not come to terms on what natural law is." I don't care. I don't care, because it doesn't exist. For me, it's like discussing the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics, and elements of the tooth fairy.

Do you have a right to life? Depends on where you live.

Do you have a right to protect your life? Depends on where you live.

Do you have a right to use the minimum force necessary to stop the attacker from stealing your life? Depends on where you live.

Rights are assigned by man. Period. Nature only cares about ability. It's not "do you have the right?" It is, instead, "do you have the ability?". Do you have the ability to kill, or ability to defend yourself. The idea of "human rights" and even "animal rights" are all invented by the minds of humans. Which is great, yay for rights. But we shouldn't take them for granted.

[Dale Eastman]

𝓢: I don't agree with the 99%/1% idea. And I bet that people who are actually enslaved wouldn't agree with it, either.

Too bad the actual slave who wrote this isn't still alive. I would bet against you.

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.”

𝔸 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕚𝕤 𝕒 𝕙𝕦𝕞𝕒𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕖 𝕠𝕨𝕟𝕖𝕣'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝. It does not matter if the override is 1% of the time or 100% of the time. It does not matter if the 𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓪 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓼𝓾𝓻𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓲𝓷𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔀𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓰 is 1% of the time or 100% of the time.

Are you going to argue that having your free will overridden only 1% of the time is not 𝓪 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓼𝓾𝓻𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓲𝓷𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔀𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓰?

𝓓: Do you have a right to ...?
𝓢: Depends on where you live.

Do you have a right to breathe?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?

Do you have a right to fend off someone attempting to suffocate you?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?

If I were to attempt to suffocate you, do you have a right to fend me off?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?

Are you going to argue that if I were to attempt to suffocate you only 1% of the time, that I am not 𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓪 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓼𝓾𝓻𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓲𝓷𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔀𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓰 to you?

𝓢: An employee who refuses to acquiesce, too, will be punished by being written up, lose their job, etc. So while it may seem as though an employee maintains free will, if you have ever worked, you might know that's not entirely true.

I reject your opinion. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

I'm a Boomer. I have supported myself since I left home in '76. Honest work for honest pay. I have quit jobs because my moral standards were higher than the employer's. I'll not post what your claim, your opinion, makes me think about you and the morality you present.

𝓓: You and I have not come to terms on what natural law is.
𝓢: it doesn't exist.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

𝓢: For me, it's like discussing the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics, and elements of the tooth fairy.

𝓢: "The idea of "human rights" [...] are all invented by the minds of humans."

LOL. The tooth fairy is a human mental construct; a human concept;  𝓢: "all invented by the minds of humans."

So is Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, any corporate person... And government.

𝓢: Rights are assigned by man. Period.

I do not agree with how you have conveyed with your thoughts. I opine I think you worded it better in your next sentence. I'll return to what I take issue with below.

𝓢: The idea of "human rights" and even "animal rights" are all invented by the minds of humans.

I do agree with this statement of yours. Although, I think the animal rights concept is a result of anthropomorphization.

The fact that rights don't exist is proven anytime a pissed off bull gores and kills a matador, Not to forget scorpions, copperheads, and sundry other critters that kill humans. So much for a human right to life when the critter wins.

Rights are a human mental construct. Rights are a human concept. 𝓢: "all invented by the minds of humans." Obviously the bull has no mental capacity to understand the concept of a human's right to life.

Who assigned the Natural Right to the bull to gore the matador that is harassing and attempting to kill him?
Are you going to reject the concept of "Natural Rights"?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?

Just to hit that dead horse one more time:
Do you have a right to hold the opinions you hold?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?
Do you have a right to choose to interact with me?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?
Do you have a right to choose to ignore me?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?

"Too bad the actual slave who wrote this isn't still alive. I would bet against you."

I'd take that bet.

"Are you going to argue that having your free will overridden only 1% of the time is not 𝓪 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓼𝓾𝓻𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓲𝓷𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔀𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓰?"

Overriding another's will is the basis for plenty of wrong actions. Why do you believe it all equals "slavery"? Rape is an example. Robbery is another. Deciding that *everything* involving an imposition of will somehow equals slavery is very strange and is factually incorrect. There is no nuance here, you are simply wrong. You've decided that you get to decide the definition of words now, but you'll have to excuse those who stick with the true meaning.

"Do you have a right to breathe?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?"

I have the *ability* to breathe. Rights are a human social construct.

"Do you have a right to fend off someone attempting to suffocate you?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?"

I have both the ability and the right, in the USA.

"If I were to attempt to suffocate you, do you have a right to fend me off?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?"

Same answer as last question.

"Are you going to argue that if I were to attempt to suffocate you only 1% of the time, that I am not 𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓽𝓸 𝓭𝓸 𝓪 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓼𝓾𝓻𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓲𝓷𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔀𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓰 to you?"

Attempted murder or murder is always wrong. Non sequitur.

"I'm a Boomer. I have supported myself since I left home in '76. Honest work for honest pay. I have quit jobs because my moral standards were higher than the employer's. I'll not post what your claim, your opinion, makes me think about you and the morality you present."

Since we have not talked about my morals, and have only talked about the truth of the world, it is interesting that you believe you can judge my morals. But since I believe your moral compass to be lacking, I suppose it is only fair for you to make assumptions about me. I sleep very well at night knowing that, unlike you, I do not require any type of sky daddy or bullet point philosophical guidelines to tell right from wrong. It's really not that hard. Know what else is wrong? Wanting to bring about a destructive, violent society, knowing full well that many will die and suffer, just so you can espouse a ridiculous philosophical-turned-political idea.

"𝓓: You and I have not come to terms on what natural law is.
𝓢: it doesn't exist.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur."

Ok. Still doesn't exist. Do y know why you can't find proof that natural law exists? Because it doesn't exist.

"LOL. The tooth fairy is a human mental construct; a human concept; 𝓢: "all invented by the minds of humans."
So is Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, any corporate person... And government."

NOW you're getting it! All of it only exists in the minds of men. Money, certificates, degrees, ranks, titles, religion, philosophy, laws, etc etc etc. are all only possible because humans have a unique ability to form complex ideas, agree to them, and share them within their society and across societies. Humans are able to exist ONLY BECAUSE we are able to all agree to a certain imaginary "thing". For example, the entire world runs on money, but money doesn't actually exist. We all just agree that this substance (gold, silver, pears, rice, cookies, brandy, etc) is worth this much, and this work is worth this much, and employees should be paid this way, while CEOs should be paid this way, etc etc etc etc. Now, even though money is imaginary, what do you think would happen if all money in the world disappeared? Society would collapse. The same thing would happen if you removed the ability to recognize education with a degree, or training with a certificate. Same thing if you removed government.

"𝓢: Rights are assigned by man. Period.

I do not agree with how you have conveyed with your thoughts. I opine I think you worded it better in your next sentence. I'll return to what I take issue with below."

🤷🏼‍♀️

"𝓢: The idea of "human rights" and even "animal rights" are all invented by the minds of humans.
I do agree with this statement of yours. Although, I think the animal rights concept is a result of anthropomorphization.
The fact that rights don't exist is proven anytime a pissed off bull gores and kills a matador, Not to forget scorpions, copperheads, and sundry other critters that kill humans. So much for a human right to life when the critter wins.
Rights are a human mental construct. Rights are a human concept. 𝓢: "all invented by the minds of humans." Obviously the bull has no mental capacity to understand the concept of a human's right to life.

Who assigned the Natural Right to the bull to gore the matador that is harassing and attempting to kill him?
Are you going to reject the concept of "Natural Rights"?
Does that 𝕕𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕪𝕠𝕦 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖?""

What is your point? Humans kill other humans all the time. Yes, I absolutely completely 100% reject the idea of "natural rights". They don't exist.

"Just to hit that dead horse one more time:
Do you have a right to hold the opinions you hold?"

I have the ability to hold my opinions. In this country, I also have the right to say them out loud.

"Do you have a right to choose to interact with me?"

 I have the ability.

"Do you have a right to choose to ignore me?"

I have the ability.

I don't conflate rights with ability, as you appear to do. It is very telling that many of the"rights" we take for granted in this country would equal imprisonment or death in another.

https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid02ERkQ9fuoNTy2vgau5wPUa1dhomkUBUJrTd5ohQVK2vbx6gzDq4rBDNuD33rok732l?comment_id=944471259869080&reply_comment_id=502511831989876

𝓓:
𝓢:

[Dale Eastman]

It is my right to use whatever level of escalating defensive force and violence against you that is sufficient to end your aggressive initiatory attack.

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=660.0

Natural Law is the right to defend against depredations using whatever level of defensive or responsive harm or violence as is required to halt the initiatory and offensive harm. Natural Law was the justification for the United State's Declaration of Independence. Natural Law was also the justification for the Magna Carta. Per both these documents, any human being harmed by an alleged ruler has a Natural Law, Natural Right to halt such an alleged ruler's depredations and attacks.

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=961.msg15406#msg15406

[Dale Eastman]

(Persons could be artificial entities, legal fictions, or flesh and blood humans.)
(I do appreciate that I don't have to explain cognitive dissonance to you.)
Notes to be moved/removed here and other post.

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1548.msg16779#msg16779

ℙ𝔸ℝ𝕋 𝟙

𝓢: Overriding another's will is the basis for plenty of wrong actions. Why do you believe it all equals "slavery"

I appreciate the question. You are asking for clarification. Your inquiry indicates to me that you have a list of "wrong actions", as do I. I'm going to guess my list has more items than yours.

The one item that is not on my list of wrong actions is the overriding of another person's will when that other person's will is to initiate harm against a human.

𝓢: Deciding that *everything* involving an imposition of will somehow equals slavery is very strange and is factually incorrect.

You brought up "an imposition of will" in your employer-employee relationship comment. The employer is the corporate entity. The corporate entity's will is communicated to the employees as interpreted by the supervisor(s). If the collective of humans in corporate employ do not say "Our business is [...]" in essentially the same words, from the janitor to the COO/president, then that business has failed in providing a common vision for all its humans.

I allowed the "imposition of will" of an almost good enough way to conduct business for a paycheck.
I quit when the "imposition of will" was to lie to customers.

<Tangent>
Thriving on Chaos: Handbook for a Management Revolution Pub. 1987
A Passion for Excellence: The Leadership Difference Pub. 1984
In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies Pub. 1982
</Tangent>

After reading these books, I chafed at not being allowed execute perfection.
As the rule of thumb says;
FAST & CHEAP but it won’t be good quality
CHEAP & GOOD QUALITY, but it won’t be quick or on time
ON TIME and GOOD QUALITY but it cannot be CHEAP

𝓢: Deciding that *everything* involving an imposition of will somehow equals slavery is very strange and is factually incorrect. There is no nuance here, you are simply wrong.

𝓢: you are simply wrong.

I reject your opinion. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
I appreciate that you explained why that is your opinion. Thank you.

𝓢: You've decided that you get to decide the definition of words now, but you'll have to excuse those who stick with the true meaning.

For a smart person, such as you have actually proven several times over, with double diplomas to boot, I am simply aghast at your presentment of your lack of knowledge of communication. A higher level educated person such as your self must surely be aware of what is referred to as "Voltaire's Admonition." Paraphrased as: If you wish to communicate, first define your terms.

𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓶-𝔀𝓮𝓫𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓻.𝓬𝓸𝓶 › 𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓻𝔂 › 𝓭𝓲𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓻𝔂
𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓸𝓯 𝓓𝓘𝓒𝓣𝓘𝓞𝓝𝓐𝓡𝓨 𝓲𝓼 𝓪 𝓻𝓮𝓯𝓮𝓻𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓮 𝓼𝓸𝓾𝓻𝓬𝓮 𝓲𝓷 𝓹𝓻𝓲𝓷𝓽 𝓸𝓻 𝓮𝓵𝓮𝓬𝓽𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓲𝓬 𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓶 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓲𝓷𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝔀𝓸𝓻𝓭𝓼 𝓾𝓼𝓾𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓪𝓵𝓹𝓱𝓪𝓫𝓮𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓪𝓻𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓰𝓮𝓭 𝓪𝓵𝓸𝓷𝓰 𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱 𝓲𝓷𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓶𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓪𝓫𝓸𝓾𝓽 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓲𝓻 𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓶𝓼, 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓾𝓷𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓼, 𝓯𝓾𝓷𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓼, 𝔼𝕥𝕪𝕞𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕚𝕖𝕤, 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓲𝓷𝓰𝓼, 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓼𝔂𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓬 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓲𝓭𝓲𝓸𝓶𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓬 𝓾𝓼𝓮𝓼.

𝓢: but you'll have to excuse those who stick with the true meaning.

From the page the above quoted synopsis links to:
𝓖𝓮𝓽 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓶𝓸𝓼𝓽 𝓽𝓻𝓾𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓭, 𝕦𝕡-𝕥𝕠-𝕕𝕒𝕥𝕖 𝕕𝕖𝕗𝕚𝕟𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕤 𝓯𝓻𝓸𝓶 𝓜𝓮𝓻𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓶-𝓦𝓮𝓫𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓻.

"True meaning"? When? You know damn well the meanings can drift with time.

𝕖𝕥𝕪𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕝𝕚𝕟𝕖.𝕔𝕠𝕞
𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕠𝕟𝕝𝕚𝕟𝕖 𝕖𝕥𝕪𝕞𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕪 𝕕𝕚𝕔𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕒𝕣𝕪 (𝕖𝕥𝕪𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕝𝕚𝕟𝕖) 𝕚𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕚𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕣𝕟𝕖𝕥'𝕤 𝕘𝕠-𝕥𝕠 𝕤𝕠𝕦𝕣𝕔𝕖 𝕗𝕠𝕣 𝕢𝕦𝕚𝕔𝕜 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕣𝕖𝕝𝕚𝕒𝕓𝕝𝕖 𝕒𝕔𝕔𝕠𝕦𝕟𝕥𝕤 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕠𝕣𝕚𝕘𝕚𝕟 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕙𝕚𝕤𝕥𝕠𝕣𝕪 𝕠𝕗 𝔼𝕟𝕘𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕙 𝕨𝕠𝕣𝕕𝕤, 𝕡𝕙𝕣𝕒𝕤𝕖𝕤, 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕚𝕕𝕚𝕠𝕞𝕤. 𝕀𝕥 𝕚𝕤 𝕡𝕣𝕠𝕗𝕖𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕒𝕝 𝕖𝕟𝕠𝕦𝕘𝕙 𝕥𝕠 𝕤𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕤𝕗𝕪 𝕒𝕔𝕒𝕕𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔 𝕤𝕥𝕒𝕟𝕕𝕒𝕣𝕕𝕤, 𝕓𝕦𝕥 𝕒𝕔𝕔𝕖𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕓𝕝𝕖 𝕖𝕟𝕠𝕦𝕘𝕙 𝕥𝕠 𝕓𝕖 𝕦𝕤𝕖𝕕 𝕓𝕪 𝕒𝕟𝕪𝕠𝕟𝕖.

“𝓦𝓱𝓮𝓷 𝓘 𝓾𝓼𝓮 𝓪 𝔀𝓸𝓻𝓭,” 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓹𝓽𝔂 𝓓𝓾𝓶𝓹𝓽𝔂 𝓼𝓪𝓲𝓭 𝓲𝓷 𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻 𝓪 𝓼𝓬𝓸𝓻𝓷𝓯𝓾𝓵 𝓽𝓸𝓷𝓮, “𝓲𝓽 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓳𝓾𝓼𝓽 𝔀𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓘 𝓬𝓱𝓸𝓸𝓼𝓮 𝓲𝓽 𝓽𝓸 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓷 — 𝓷𝓮𝓲𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻 𝓶𝓸𝓻𝓮 𝓷𝓸𝓻 𝓵𝓮𝓼𝓼.”
“𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓲𝓼,” 𝓼𝓪𝓲𝓭 𝓐𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓮, “𝔀𝓱𝓮𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻 𝔂𝓸𝓾 𝓬𝓪𝓷 𝓶𝓪𝓴𝓮 𝔀𝓸𝓻𝓭𝓼 𝓶𝓮𝓪𝓷 𝓼𝓸 𝓶𝓪𝓷𝔂 𝓭𝓲𝓯𝓯𝓮𝓻𝓮𝓷𝓽 𝓽𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓰𝓼.”
“𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓺𝓾𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓲𝓼,” 𝓼𝓪𝓲𝓭 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓹𝓽𝔂 𝓓𝓾𝓶𝓹𝓽𝔂, “𝔀𝓱𝓲𝓬𝓱 𝓲𝓼 𝓽𝓸 𝓫𝓮 𝓶𝓪𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓻 – – 𝓽𝓱𝓪𝓽’𝓼 𝓪𝓵𝓵.”

ℙ𝔸ℝ𝕋 𝟚

I reject your statement of your opinion, quoted in part 1, as itself factually incorrect due to the imprecision of the words used. My edit of your sentence to remove the imprecision I object to.

𝓢: Deciding that *everything* involving an [overriding of another's will] somehow equals slavery is very strange and is factually incorrect.
𝓢: You've decided that you get to decide the definition of words now, but you'll have to excuse those who stick with the true meaning.

Okay...

SLAVE: 𝓞𝓷𝓮 𝔀𝓱𝓸 𝓲𝓼 𝓸𝔀𝓷𝓮𝓭 𝓪𝓼 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓽𝔂 𝓸𝓯 𝓼𝓸𝓶𝓮𝓸𝓷𝓮 𝓮𝓵𝓼𝓮, 𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓲𝓷 𝓲𝓷𝓿𝓸𝓵𝓾𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓻𝔂 𝓼𝓮𝓻𝓿𝓲𝓽𝓾𝓭𝓮.
𝓞𝓷𝓮 𝔀𝓱𝓸 𝓲𝓼 𝓼𝓾𝓫𝓼𝓮𝓻𝓿𝓲𝓮𝓷𝓽 𝓽𝓸 𝓸𝓻 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓸𝓵𝓵𝓮𝓭 𝓫𝔂 𝓪𝓷𝓸𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻.
𝓞𝓷𝓮 𝔀𝓱𝓸 𝓲𝓼 𝓼𝓾𝓫𝓳𝓮𝓬𝓽 𝓽𝓸 𝓸𝓻 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓸𝓵𝓵𝓮𝓭 𝓫𝔂 𝓪 𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓲𝓯𝓲𝓮𝓭 𝓲𝓷𝓯𝓵𝓾𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓮.
𝓯𝓻𝓸𝓶 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓐𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓷 𝓗𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓰𝓮® 𝓓𝓲𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓻𝔂 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓷𝓰𝓵𝓲𝓼𝓱 𝓛𝓪𝓷𝓰𝓾𝓪𝓰𝓮, 5𝓽𝓱 𝓔𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷. 𝓜𝓸𝓻𝓮 𝓪𝓽 𝓦𝓸𝓻𝓭𝓷𝓲𝓴

SLAVE: 𝖒𝖊𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖆𝖒-𝖜𝖊𝖇𝖘𝖙𝖊𝖗.𝖈𝖔𝖒 › 𝖉𝖎𝖈𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖆𝖗𝖞 › 𝖘𝖑𝖆𝖛𝖊
𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝖒𝖊𝖆𝖓𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝖔𝖋 𝕾𝕷𝕬𝖁𝕰 𝖎𝖘 𝖆 𝖕𝖊𝖗𝖘𝖔𝖓 𝖍𝖊𝖑𝖉 𝖎𝖓 𝖋𝖔𝖗𝖈𝖊𝖉 𝖘𝖊𝖗𝖛𝖎𝖙𝖚𝖉𝖊.

SLAVE: 𝒹𝒾𝒸𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓇𝓎.𝒸𝑜𝓂 › 𝒷𝓇𝑜𝓌𝓈𝑒 › 𝓈𝓁𝒶𝓋𝑒
𝒮𝓁𝒶𝓋𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝒻𝒾𝓃𝒾𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃, 𝒶 𝓅𝑒𝓇𝓈𝑜𝓃 𝓌𝒽𝑜 𝒾𝓈 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇𝓉𝓎 𝑜𝒻 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓌𝒽𝑜𝓁𝓁𝓎 𝓈𝓊𝒷𝒿𝑒𝒸𝓉 𝓉𝑜 𝒶𝓃𝑜𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝒻𝑜𝓇𝒸𝑒𝒹 𝓉𝑜 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓋𝒾𝒹𝑒 𝓊𝓃𝓅𝒶𝒾𝒹 𝓁𝒶𝒷𝑜𝓇. 𝒮𝑒𝑒 𝓂𝑜𝓇𝑒.

Do I need to hit this particular dead slave, er... horse any more?

My definition of 𝔸 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕚𝕤 𝕒 𝕙𝕦𝕞𝕒𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕖 𝕠𝕨𝕟𝕖𝕣'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝 comports itself with the above dictionhistory entries.

𝓢: Overriding another's will is the basis for plenty of wrong actions. Why do you believe it all equals "slavery"? Rape is an example.

Are you going to claim a woman being raped is not a sex slave for the duration of the rape? Was that woman's time and life not stolen for the duration of the rape?

𝓢: Robbery is another.

Are you going to claim a human spending time earning what was taken wasn't the taking of that time and energy spent earning the property taken? Are you going to claim that the robbery didn't change the time working into enslavement for the benefit of the enslaving robber against the victim's will, albeit unknowingly by the victim at the time?

𝓢: I have the *ability* to breathe. Rights are a human social construct.

We agree that "rights" are a human social construct.

What was the purpose of the construction of the concept of rights. (Rhetorical because you did approach this. Your quote is in part 3.)

𝓓: Do you have a right to fend off someone attempting to suffocate you?
𝓢: I have both the ability and the right, in the USA.
𝓓: If I were to attempt to suffocate you, do you have a right to fend me off?
𝓢: I have both the ability and the right, in the USA.

𝓢: Rights are assigned by man. Period.

Would you have a right to fend off someone attempting to suffocate you if you were not in the USA?
In other words:
Would you have a right to fend off someone attempting to suffocate you if a right to life was not assigned to you?

𝓢: Since we have not talked about my morals, and have only talked about the truth of the world, it is interesting that you believe you can judge my morals. But since I believe your moral compass to be lacking, I suppose it is only fair for you to make assumptions about me.

I would love to find out my assumption regarding your morality is wrong.

𝓢: I do not require any type of [...] philosophical guidelines to tell right from wrong. It's really not that hard.

Regardless, you learned right from wrong and internalized your experiential guidelines. You and I both learned those experiential guidelines growing up.

Even though most have no clue about experiential guidelines and never question what they are, all have them.

For example, a child observes mom and / or dad shoplifting. Does this not indicate to the child that stealing is not wrong?

How did most parents learn to parent? Were they not taught parenting and parenting guidelines by how their parents parented them? What are their cognitions regarding right from wrong parenting... If any?

There appears to me, a difference between you and I. I examined my "right from wrong" dogma/ guidelines by the light of "right from wrong" philosophical guidelines. Bradshaw on the Family Pub. 1988 in the case of my fup and wrong family values.

What has not been addressed is the philosophical guidelines of "right from wrong" that I use.

𝓢: Know what else is wrong? Wanting to bring about a destructive, violent society, knowing full well that many will die and suffer, just so you can espouse a ridiculous philosophical-turned-political idea.

Since we are opining about each others wrongs, know what else is wrong? Ignoring that society is already destructive, violent, and makes many die and suffer.

You are blind to this truth. I understand that you, like the majority, have no clue about that particular, provable. reality. I'll save you some typing: I know you reject that claim.

ℙ𝔸ℝ𝕋 𝟛

𝓓: The tooth fairy is a human mental construct; a human concept; 𝓢: "all invented by the minds of humans."
So is Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, any corporate person... And government.
𝓢: All of it only exists in the minds of men. Money, certificates, degrees, ranks, titles, religion, philosophy, laws, etc etc etc. are all only possible because humans have a unique ability to form complex ideas, agree to them, and share them within their society and across societies. Humans are able to exist ONLY BECAUSE we are able to all agree to a certain imaginary "thing".

I labelled a question in part 1 rhetorical because you wrote this. I have some nits to pick with what you listed. Some I wish to delve into, others are not important enough for me to examine.

I am taking this as your admission that the purpose of these imaginary things is to avoid a destructive, violent society, with many dying and suffering. Your silence on this will suffice as agreement to my assumption and save you some typing.

𝓢: For example, the entire world runs on money, but money doesn't actually exist.

Per G. Edward Griffin in THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND Pub. 1994, Money is a measure and store of value.

Rephrasing your opinion / claim to match my observation of the world: The entire world runs on "a measure and store of value". That is all one needs to know to examine ANY thing having to do with "money".

To split hairs, Federal Reserve Notes are NOT money. They are "currency" that must be accepted as payment of a debt. They are LEGAL TENDER, and as is printed on each and every FRN, "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE".

Federal Reserve NOTEs are Federal Reserve IOU's, just like a mortgage or a installment payment plan used in purchasing a car. In fact, I read on one of the twelve Federal Reserve banks' website, the admission that FRN's are "monetized debt".

𝓢: We all just agree that this substance (gold, silver, pears, rice, cookies, brandy, etc) is worth this much, and this work is worth this much, and employees should be paid this way, while CEOs should be paid this way, etc etc etc etc.

You and I ARE NOT WE. You, I, your sister ARE NOT WE.

I object to your reification of the term "WE", implying that the many, the collective, are a single entity and that the many, the collective, have given you authority to speak for each and every individual included, corralled, or fenced in by the term "WE".

𝓢: Now, even though money is imaginary, what do you think would happen if all money in the world disappeared?

Apparently you don't understand what money is. Nor its types.

𝟣. 𝒞𝑜𝓂𝓂𝑜𝒹𝒾𝓉𝓎 𝓂𝑜𝓃𝑒𝓎
𝟤. 𝑅𝑒𝒸𝑒𝒾𝓅𝓉 𝓂𝑜𝓃𝑒𝓎
𝟥. 𝐹𝒾𝒶𝓉 𝓂𝑜𝓃𝑒𝓎
𝟦. 𝐹𝓇𝒶𝒸𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓁 𝓂𝑜𝓃𝑒𝓎

𝓢: Society would collapse.

That's your opinion.

𝓢: The same thing would happen if you removed the ability to recognize education with a degree, or training with a certificate.

That's your opinion.
I will admit that determining who has knowledge would be "slightly" harder to discern.

My certification/diploma from my military training in electronics is not what got me into several of the jobs I've had over the years. Quick quizzes on technical knowledge is what did. In fact, a tech quiz on "ladder diagrams", something that I had never seen prior to this quiz, is what helped me get the position. I figured it out on the fly, thus proving I could read the diagram even as I learned to read the diagram, understood its control of its machine, and found the problems as quizzed on the machine. I have very good "figure it out" ability. I know this because I know myself, and because my peers observed me using my figure it out ability and commented on the same.

It's not that hard to determine who's blowing smoke up your ass when you know the information you are quizzing another about.

Back to your opinion that society is going to collapse without certifications and degrees... I'll leave you to look up "Galloping Gertie", designed by credentialed engineers. I'll leave you to look up Apollo 13, designed and built by credentialed engineers. (Don't look at what the credentialed engineer that designed the New York trade center towers to withstand a Boeing 707 impact said about the towers collapsing.)

𝓢: Same thing if you removed government.

I know, without any doubt, that you and I do NOT agree on what the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of "government" is. I know, without any doubt, that you will reject both of my definitions of what government actually is.

𝓢: What is your point? Humans kill other humans all the time. Yes, I absolutely completely 100% reject the idea of "natural rights". They don't exist.

WAIT!
Gimme a moment while I scroll up.
...
I'm back.

𝓓: Do you have a right to life?
𝓢: Depends on where you live.
𝓓: Do you have a right to fend off someone attempting to suffocate you?
𝓢: I have both the ability and the right, in the USA.
𝓓: Do you have a right to protect your life?
𝓢: Depends on where you live.

What's the difference between human rights and natural rights?
Are you going to claim neither exists?

𝓢: I have the ability to hold my opinions. In this country, I also have the right to say them out loud.

How can you have a right to anything if rights don't exist.

𝓢: I don't conflate rights with ability, as you appear to do.

I don't accept "might makes right" which you have been not just accepting, but arguing for...

"Might makes right" is exactly what has lead to the destructive, violent society, with many dying and suffering that provably currently exists.

𝓢: It is very telling that many of the"rights" we take for granted in this country would equal imprisonment or death in another.

What, exactly, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics, and elements of these various rights?
What, specifically, is common with all these various rights?

Commonality of various rights? The right to not be harmed by another human?

https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid0AhxCwN1hhYcvKWS2eMyrH82rVBAKJysipZHj8CE7kCGyYGhaAhLEB7dX7SrzEkRCl?comment_id=944471259869080&reply_comment_id=1947750595574389

[Dale Eastman]

ℙ𝔸ℝ𝕋 𝟜
Parts 1-3 are under the other OP thread.

𝓢: the definition [of anarchy] is pretty clear. Though I realize that libertarians love to change the definition of words to fit their agenda.
𝓢: I can assure you that the word anarchy certainly doesn't mean order.

What, specifically, do YOU mean when you use the word "anarchy"?

𝓢: I'm not the one wishing harm on others. That is your ideology, not mine.

I share the same ideology as the person your quote was a reply to. So such a reply to him is the same as if you had said that to me.

Please present your evidence and your reasoning that he and I "wish" to harm others.

𝓢: Like it or not, you will never have everyone agree with your ideas of morality. Never.

Friendly reminder, the three of us already agree on these ideas of morality.

If you were motivated to compare your sister's friend list for overlap of my friend list, you would find many more folks who agree with these ideas of morality.

In the dialog I'm mining for your... ah... opinions, I do not see the specific traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of these morality ideas. If you do not know or understand this idea of morality, then you have no ground to stand on to criticize this specific morality idea.

I doubt that you can succinctly state these morality ideas.

𝓢: Are you going to force 8 billion people to believe the way you believe?

Are we forcing you to believe the way we believe?

You fail being moral simply because, from other discussion with you, you support the "might makes right" bullshit. And in the quoted words, your first thought is to turn to using force as a way to achieve change.

𝓢: How are you going to do that?

By simply being observed being more moral than you. Like with this dialog for example.

𝓢: No matter what you do, no matter how vehemently you believe what you believe, everyone isn't going to suddenly promise real hard to be good and adopt your beliefs.

Conflate much? Here's your words with the conflation removed:

𝓢: No matter what you do, no matter how vehemently you believe what you believe, everyone isn't going to suddenly [...] adopt your beliefs.

They don't have to. All they have to know is actions have consequences. Attempt to harm me or mine, I have the right to return escalating harm and violence sufficient to make your attack more costly than you wish to pay.

Contrary to your incorrect, publicly stated opinion of myself and others wishing to harm others, we do NOT want to harm others. We wish to be left alone by others who will initiate harm against us.

𝓢: And if you take away a government, you are asking for civil war and foreign invasion.

That's your opinion.
Repeating what I have posted: I know, without any doubt, that you and I do NOT agree on what the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of "government" is. I know, without any doubt, that you will reject both of my definitions of what government actually is.

Also, the "government" is already executing a civil war against "us". Save your typing. I already know you reject that claim. I also know you are confused regarding who is the attacker and who is the defender.

𝓢: I hate the fact that war exists, but it does exist. It will likely always exist.

What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of war?

𝓢: This isn't Nazi Germany, there are not a lot of "horrible things" that can be done within the law.

Only ❶ premeditated murder, ❷ defrauding trillions from people, ❸ making humans homeless, ❹ taking property without court order, ❺ coercion-extortion, ❻ doing medical experiments on humans without their consent, ❼ and enslavement.

Seven things. Yeah. That's not a lot. /sarcasm.
I will show proof in a separate posts.

ℙ𝔸ℝ𝕋 𝟝

𝓢: Haven't you noticed that police involved in police brutality cases have acted outside the law?

<sarcasm>
Haven't you noticed that police investigate themselves and often find they did nothing wrong.
</sarcasm>

Many cops are often captured on camera doing illegal actions only to get a light slap on the wrist, if anything at all.

I am going to assume that searching for police brutality videos and observing them is not something you have ever done.
https://search.brave.com/videos?q=police%20brutality%20videos&source=web
Understandable because it rattles the brainwashing that police are for your protection. ❽ They're not.

𝓢: Actually, any horrible thing you can think of can be done with or without the law, only without the law, you can't do a damn thing about it.

Clarification please. Are you claiming that without the law, one 𝓬𝓪𝓷'𝓽 𝓭𝓸 𝓪 𝓭𝓪𝓶𝓷 𝓽𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓪𝓫𝓸𝓾𝓽 an attacker that is attacking?

𝓢: I mean look, anarchists dehumanize police officers, government officials, even county pee-ons all the time.

Wrong.

As a anarchist, voluntaryist, and YDOMist, I do not "dehumanize" the ruling class. They do that all by themselves because they treat the ruled slave class like slaves and/or inhumanely.

𝓢: The realities of police work is easy to ignore when you're not in it all the time, but it's scary and it's real.

Yeah... About those realities. I'm quoting Dr. Robert Higgs:
𝒯𝒽𝑒 𝓌𝒽𝑜𝓁𝑒 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹 𝒞𝑜𝓅 / 𝐵𝒶𝒹 𝒞𝑜𝓅 𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓈𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝒸𝒶𝓃 𝒷𝑒 𝒹𝒾𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓈𝑒𝒹 𝑜𝒻 𝓂𝓊𝒸𝒽 𝓂𝑜𝓇𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝒸𝒾𝓈𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁𝓎. 𝒲𝑒 𝓃𝑒𝑒𝒹 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝑒𝓃𝓊𝓂𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓉𝑒 𝓌𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓅𝑜𝓇𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝑜𝒻 𝒸𝑜𝓅𝓈 𝒶𝓅𝓅𝑒𝒶𝓇𝓈 𝓉𝑜 𝒷𝑒 𝑔𝑜𝑜𝒹 𝑜𝓇 𝓁𝒾𝓈𝓉𝑒𝓃 𝓉𝑜 𝓈𝑜𝓂𝑒𝑜𝓃𝑒'𝓈 𝒶𝓃𝑒𝒸𝒹𝑜𝓉𝑒 𝒶𝒷𝑜𝓊𝓉 𝒽𝒾𝓈 𝓊𝓃𝒸𝓁𝑒 𝒞𝒽𝒶𝓇𝓁𝒾𝑒, 𝒶𝓃 𝒶𝓁𝓁𝑒𝑔𝑒𝒹𝓁𝓎 𝑔𝑜𝑜𝒹 𝒸𝑜𝓅.

𝒲𝑒 𝓃𝑒𝑒𝒹 𝑜𝓃𝓁𝓎 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝒾𝒹𝑒𝓇 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒻𝑜𝓁𝓁𝑜𝓌𝒾𝓃𝑔:
𝒜 𝒸𝑜𝓅'𝓈 𝒿𝑜𝒷 𝒾𝓈 𝓉𝑜 𝑒𝓃𝒻𝑜𝓇𝒸𝑒 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓁𝒶𝓌𝓈, 𝒶𝓁𝓁 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂;
𝑀𝒶𝓃𝓎 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓁𝒶𝓌𝓈 𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝓂𝒶𝓃𝒾𝒻𝑒𝓈𝓉𝓁𝓎 𝓊𝓃𝒿𝓊𝓈𝓉, 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓈𝑜𝓂𝑒 𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓃 𝒸𝓇𝓊𝑒𝓁 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓌𝒾𝒸𝓀𝑒𝒹;
𝒯𝒽𝑒𝓇𝑒𝒻𝑜𝓇𝑒 𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓎 𝒸𝑜𝓅 𝒽𝒶𝓈 𝓉𝑜 𝒶𝑔𝓇𝑒𝑒 𝓉𝑜 𝒶𝒸𝓉 𝒶𝓈 𝒶𝓃 𝑒𝓃𝒻𝑜𝓇𝒸𝑒𝓇 𝒻𝑜𝓇 𝓁𝒶𝓌𝓈 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝓂𝒶𝓃𝒾𝒻𝑒𝓈𝓉𝓁𝓎 𝓊𝓃𝒿𝓊𝓈𝓉 𝑜𝓇 𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓃 𝒸𝓇𝓊𝑒𝓁 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓌𝒾𝒸𝓀𝑒𝒹.
𝒯𝒽𝑒𝓇𝑒 𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝓃𝑜 𝑔𝑜𝑜𝒹 𝒸𝑜𝓅𝓈.

Police are not for your protection. ❽

𝓢: There are tons of solutions to problems that don't involve tearing down a society that took hundreds of years to build.

I'm sure that non-sequitur assumption is your opinion.

𝓢: It flagged on screen that the phone was calling emergency services[...]
Fast forward ten to fifteen minutes and we get a knock on the door[...]
when I answer the door. He sees the look on my face and says "I'm sorry if I alarmed you[...]

Dial 911 and Die by Richard W. Stevens. Pub. 1999. I have not read this book. I am aware of the results found. The title says it all.

I will identify the court case this quote was excerpted from when I compose and post my ❽ post.

𝓦𝓪𝓻𝓻𝓮𝓷'𝓼 𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵 𝔀𝓪𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓭 𝓪𝓽 𝓜𝓮𝓽𝓻𝓸𝓹𝓸𝓵𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓷 𝓟𝓸𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓓𝓮𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓽𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽 𝓗𝓮𝓪𝓭𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓼 𝓪𝓽 6:23 𝓪. 𝓶., 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔀𝓪𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓸𝓻𝓭𝓮𝓭 𝓪𝓼 𝓪 𝓫𝓾𝓻𝓰𝓵𝓪𝓻𝔂 𝓲𝓷 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓰𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓼. 𝓐𝓽 6:26 𝓪. 𝓶., 𝓪 𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵 𝔀𝓪𝓼 𝓭𝓲𝓼𝓹𝓪𝓽𝓬𝓱𝓮𝓭 𝓽𝓸 𝓸𝓯𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓮𝓻𝓼 𝓸𝓷 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓮𝓮𝓽 𝓪𝓼 𝓪 "𝓒𝓸𝓭𝓮 2" 𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓰𝓷𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽, 𝓪𝓵𝓽𝓱𝓸𝓾𝓰𝓱 𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝓼 𝓸𝓯 𝓪 𝓬𝓻𝓲𝓶𝓮 𝓲𝓷 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓰𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓼 𝓼𝓱𝓸𝓾𝓵𝓭 𝓫𝓮 𝓰𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓷 𝓹𝓻𝓲𝓸𝓻𝓲𝓽𝔂 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓭𝓮𝓼𝓲𝓰𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓪𝓼 "𝓒𝓸𝓭𝓮 1." 𝓕𝓸𝓾𝓻 𝓹𝓸𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓬𝓻𝓾𝓲𝓼𝓮𝓻𝓼 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓹𝓸𝓷𝓭𝓮𝓭 𝓽𝓸 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓫𝓻𝓸𝓪𝓭𝓬𝓪𝓼𝓽; 𝓽𝓱𝓻𝓮𝓮 𝓽𝓸 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓛𝓪𝓶𝓸𝓷𝓽 𝓢𝓽𝓻𝓮𝓮𝓽 𝓪𝓭𝓭𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓼 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓸𝓷𝓮 𝓽𝓸 𝓪𝓷𝓸𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻 𝓪𝓭𝓭𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓼 𝓽𝓸 𝓲𝓷𝓿𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓽𝓮 𝓪 𝓹𝓸𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓫𝓵𝓮 𝓼𝓾𝓼𝓹𝓮𝓬𝓽.

𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝔀𝓱𝓲𝓵𝓮, 𝓦𝓪𝓻𝓻𝓮𝓷 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓣𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓪𝓯𝓮𝓻𝓻𝓸 𝓬𝓻𝓪𝔀𝓵𝓮𝓭 𝓯𝓻𝓸𝓶 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓲𝓻 𝔀𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓸𝔀 𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓸 𝓪𝓷 𝓪𝓭𝓳𝓸𝓲𝓷𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓻𝓸𝓸𝓯 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝔀𝓪𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓯𝓸𝓻 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓹𝓸𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓮 𝓽𝓸 𝓪𝓻𝓻𝓲𝓿𝓮. 𝓦𝓱𝓲𝓵𝓮 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮, 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝔂 𝓼𝓪𝔀 𝓸𝓷𝓮 𝓹𝓸𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓮𝓶𝓪𝓷 𝓭𝓻𝓲𝓿𝓮 𝓽𝓱𝓻𝓸𝓾𝓰𝓱 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓪𝓵𝓵𝓮𝔂 𝓫𝓮𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓭 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓲𝓻 𝓱𝓸𝓾𝓼𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓬𝓮𝓮𝓭 𝓽𝓸 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓯𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓽 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓮 𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱𝓸𝓾𝓽 𝓼𝓽𝓸𝓹𝓹𝓲𝓷𝓰, 𝓵𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓸𝓾𝓽 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝔀𝓲𝓷𝓭𝓸𝔀, 𝓸𝓻 𝓰𝓮𝓽𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓸𝓾𝓽 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓬𝓪𝓻 𝓽𝓸 𝓬𝓱𝓮𝓬𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓫𝓪𝓬𝓴 𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓬𝓮 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓱𝓸𝓾𝓼𝓮. 𝓐 𝓼𝓮𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓭 𝓸𝓯𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓮𝓻 𝓪𝓹𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓵𝔂 𝓴𝓷𝓸𝓬𝓴𝓮𝓭 𝓸𝓷 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓭𝓸𝓸𝓻 𝓲𝓷 𝓯𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓽 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓮, 𝓫𝓾𝓽 𝓵𝓮𝓯𝓽 𝔀𝓱𝓮𝓷 𝓱𝓮 𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓮𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓭 𝓷𝓸 𝓪𝓷𝓼𝔀𝓮𝓻. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓽𝓱𝓻𝓮𝓮 𝓸𝓯𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓮𝓻𝓼 𝓭𝓮𝓹𝓪𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓼𝓬𝓮𝓷𝓮 𝓪𝓽 6:33 𝓪. 𝓶., 𝓯𝓲𝓿𝓮 𝓶𝓲𝓷𝓾𝓽𝓮𝓼 𝓪𝓯𝓽𝓮𝓻 𝓽𝓱𝓮𝔂 𝓪𝓻𝓻𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓭.

You described some shitty police protective work. What if that look on your face was because you actually had an intruder that had J and yourself in a threatening situation... Or more transpired than the look on your face to alleviate what should have been the cop's concern? <shrug> No matter.

[Dale Eastman]

Not yet posted ❶ - ❽

❶ premeditated murder

Any ‘government’ that has capital punishment laws on its books, premeditates murder.  Any ‘government’ that actually executes its prisoners IS a murderer.  And since it doesn’t happen unless the law is on the books, ‘governments’ executing prisoners are committing premeditated murder.

‘Government’ murder is not limited to executing prisoners.
Do a Google search for “Ruby Ridge” (189,000 hits) and you will find articles such as the one found on the web site of the Cato Institute from which the following excerpt was taken:

During the night, FBI snipers took positions around the Weaver cabin. There is no dispute about the fact that the snipers were given illegal "shoot to kill" orders. Under the law, police agents can use deadly force to defend themselves and others from imminent attack, but these snipers were instructed to shoot any adult who was armed and outside the cabin, regardless of whether the adult posed a threat or not. The next morning, an FBI agent shot and wounded Randy Weaver. A few moments later, the same agent shot Weaver's wife in the head as she was standing in the doorway of her home holding a baby in her arms. The FBI snipers had not yet announced their presence and had not given the Weavers an opportunity to peacefully surrender.
By Timothy Lynch, published in National Review Online, Aug. 21, 2002.

A Google search of “Waco: The Rules of Engagement” (24,400 hits) will lead you to more ‘government’ murder.

The mythos of ‘government’ would have you ignore the simple fact that our ‘government’ “is” a murderer.

War is when governments commit to murdering those not on their side.

❷ defrauding trillions from people

Dear IRS,

SCOTUS has said:
   In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." GOULD v. GOULD, 245 U.S. 151 (1917).

 SCOTUS has said:
... [T]he well-settled rule ... the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid... SPRECKELS SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MCCLAIN, 192 U.S. 397 (1904)

SCOTUS has said:
If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627 (1886)

What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?

I personally know, from weeks, nay, from months of reading federal income tax law, that there is NO tax imposed upon a private citizen's domestically earned compensation for labor. Send that 204 word letter and apprise me of the statute they respond with.

Also...

While you read the next quote, ask yourself if it is possible that you have voluntarily agreed to pay taxes you don't owe.

§3402. Income tax collected at source
(p) Voluntary withholding agreements
(3) Authority for other voluntary withholding
The Secretary is authorized by regulations to provide for withholding—
(A) from remuneration for services performed by an employee for the employee's employer which (without regard to this paragraph) does not constitute wages, and
(B) from any other type of payment with respect to which the Secretary finds that withholding would be appropriate under the provisions of this chapter,
if the employer and employee, or the person making and the person receiving such other type of payment, agree to such withholding. Such agreement shall be in such form and manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe. For purposes of this chapter (and so much of subtitle F as relates to this chapter), remuneration or other payments with respect to which such agreement is made shall be treated as if they were wages paid by an employer to an employee to the extent that such remuneration is paid or other payments are made during the period for which the agreement is in effect.

Doesn't that subsection allow you to voluntarily allow withholding on non-taxable revenue? Doesn't that subsection allow you to voluntarily donate money to the IRS that is not payment of a tax?

Doesn't that subsection show the following in an entirely different light?

26 CFR 601.602
Subpart F_Rules, Regulations, and Forms
Sec. 601.602 Tax forms and instructions.

(a) Tax return forms and instructions.
The tax system is based on voluntary compliance, and the taxpayers complete and return the forms with payment of any tax owed.

❸ making humans homeless

I personally know a family that had their home taken because of getting behind on the property taxes.

❹ taking property without court order

Incredible as it sounds, civil asset forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property without charging anyone with a crime. Police can seize property first and hold it pending trial, which could be four to six years later. The government’s case for forfeiture can be based on allegations of illegal activity of someone other than the property owner. At trial the owner has to prove innocence – the government does not have to prove the property owner was guilty. Many forfeiture victims don’t have enough assets left after the seizure to hire counsel, yet the procedures are too complicated for property owners to successfully defend themselves.
 Forfeiture Endangers American Rights Foundation.org

❺ coercion-extortion

If you do not submit to the rules the ruling class has demanded you obey, people with guns will be sent to make you comply. If you do not comply you will be issued a citation. If you do not appear in court, you will be found guilty as charged. If the charge is not simple financial extortion, if you refuse to appear in court, people with guns will use force to drag you kicking and screaming, into the court. The goons will ramp up their force against you until you comply or are dead.

❻ doing medical experiments on humans without their consent

Take the MRNA shot made available under an emergency use authorization... Or else.
Note to self: Edit to update with the various bits of evidence.

❼ and enslavement

𝔸 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕚𝕤 𝕒 𝕙𝕦𝕞𝕒𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕖 𝕠𝕨𝕟𝕖𝕣'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝 𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕧𝕖'𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝.

Malum Prohibitum & Mala Prohibita are the ruling class rules overriding the slaves' free will.

❽ Police are not for your protection.

No Duty To Protect

The dictionary definition claims that the purpose of the police is crime prevention, and to maintain peace, safety, and order. This dictionary definition does not account for what the law and the courts have to say on this matter.

South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 396 (1855)
⚠ Consequently we are of opinion that the declaration sets forth no sufficient cause of action.⛔

In common speech no sufficient cause of action means the suit for damages caused by the sheriff failing to protect the plaintiff is dismissed for lack of standing.

The court listed the Sheriff's legal duties in the full text. The Plaintiff did not have standing to sue the Sheriff because the Sheriff did not have a legal duty to protect the Plaintiff.

Warren v. District of Columbia 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
⚠ The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection.⛔

"The well-established rule"... Well, since 1855 that is.

DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
⚠ A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.⛔

CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES 545 U.S.748 (2005)
⚠ We decide in this case whether an individual who has obtained a state-law restraining order has a constitutionally protected property interest in having the police enforce the restraining order when they have probable cause to believe it has been violated.
[...]
We conclude, therefore, that respondent did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.⛔

The court ruled that Jessica Gonzales did not have a right to expect police protection for herself or her three daughters.

Statutory Law
California, Illinois, and New Jersey tell the same truth in no uncertain terms.

Stated in California Code 845:
⚠ Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.⛔

Stated in 745 Illinois Compiled Statute 10/4-102:
⚠ Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, failure to detect or solve crimes, and failure to identify or apprehend criminals. ⛔

Stated in New Jersey Revised Statute 59:5-4:
⚠ Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.⛔

Do you still believe that the police force exists to protect you?

[Dale Eastman]

I don't have time to give a reply right now, but this reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend. I'll share one sentence. "Ah yes, anarchists, the people who get mad at police shooting people because they wanted to shoot them themselves". Seriously, you are all the most ammosexual, bloodthirsty group of people I've ever seen. Maybe you should think on that.

I appreciate and am thankful that you are giving replies when you can.
And thank you for the courtesy heads up.
I'll not challenge after the "but" 'till later.

[Dale Eastman]

EW false equivalence. Animals exist in a natural state without cages. Humans, however, do not form social groups without some type of hierarchy. Ever. Even small tribal groups have a leader. Children naturally pick a leader. There have been many social experiments which show this, but really it just takes a little education and life experience to know it.

[Sister] hot take: no one is trying to track you. 🤷🏼‍♀️

I've taken self defense. J has taken self defense. I'm still not naive enough to believe that I or my daughter could take on most situations. You need to study more actual true crime cases; the element of surprise is always the advantage of the aggressor. But the most important fact is that all of your daughters are far more likely to be hurt or killed by a domestic partner than by some random person on the street. Women are uniquely at risk in this way. One of the most important things a woman can have is a way to discreetly call for help. I wish I would have had a button on my phone that could have helped me years ago with that situation I told you about in Sedona. As it was, a friend showed up at my house and called the police when he realized what was going on.

Plus the solution that every anarchist seems to spout is to just shoot whoever commits a crime against you; seriously? You just want everyone to just start shooting each other? No accountability, just trust that they had a good reason? Insanity. Plus, do you really think that everyone wants to kill other people? Do you realize how much guilt I'd have if I actually ended up shooting Reid and he died? I would never be the same. Having the ability to bring in a third party with authority allowed that situation to end peacefully. And that's only one of millions of the same scenario that plays over and over around the world.

I already asked you about your government comment. I personally believe that the constitution is something of a masterpiece on the world stage and don't agree with your take. But, I'm curious to know, if you believed that the constitution was enacted the way you believe it "should" have been, would you then somehow be ok with having a government?

Dale Eastman holy crap, you must be retired or something. I skimmed most of what you wrote and, as expected, it's a bunch of false nonsense, an effed-up moral compass, delusional thinking, confirmation bias, an overactive imagination, and an overdose of the Dunning-Kruger effect. But I'm not going to read and respond to all of that. I hate wasting my time.

I will respond to one thing you said, though, because it shows pretty clearly how your brain works.

"You described some shitty police protective work..." See, you took a few sentences, didn't ask for any clarification on any points, and drew a false conclusion that fulfilled your bias. I believe that this is what you do with pretty much everyone and everything.

The police officer did a great job. Believe it or not, my expression changed when I realized why he was there. I was laughing and relieved that no one was hurt or dead. He saw we were fine and he left. I bet if he would have insisted on coming inside, you would have something negative to say about that. In fact, I bet there is absolutely nothing he could have done to make you happy with the fact that he exists at all.

One more thing: what do you think Putin would do if we suddenly had no government? What do you think the response would be from Al-Qaeda? What do you think Li Zuocheng and Wei Fenghe would think? You think they would just leave us alone out of the goodness of their hearts? Yeah. Ok.