« on: December 26, 2022, 01:42:36 PM »
Liberty or Slavery
If you are an anti-gun coward...
Try to understand:
A human with a gun will not gently become a slave.
synapticsparks.info
hey bud you want to point to the people that will, in fact, gently become a slave?
➽ hey bud you want to point to the people that will, in fact, gently become a slave?
If you have ever filled out a Form W9, Form W4, Form 1040, or gone to a public school... Look in the mirror.
If you would be so kind as to explain to me why you have an issue with what I wrote??
uhhh sure. Try and enslave me buddy. I went to public school and I pay my taxes. Bring your little tyranny schtick and you find out what fun tricks a drone pilot can do.
What we obviously have here, is a failure to communicate. This is on me because you don't understand what I am presenting.
➽ I went to public school and I pay my taxes.
In writing that, you have admitted to gently becoming a slave.
What do I mean with the word "slave"?
What do you understand when you read the word "slave"?
you're presenting weird formatting and weak fucking arguments, hoss. You didn't address what I mentioned, you just pulled the coward move of "Oho, clearly I am too smart for you". Man the fuck up and address the issue.
➽ Man the fuck up and address the issue.
You're a slave brainwashed into believing you are not a slave.
Second inquiry:
What do I mean with the word "slave"?
What do you understand when you read the word "slave"?
oh look, it's the guy who spends all their time arguing semantics. Slavery is a pretty fucking specific state. The stuff you're talking about is actually "normal things people do in a normal society".
➽ Slavery is a pretty fucking specific state.
And in your mind that is?
I can't read your mind. I do not ass u me it means the same to each of us.
Third inquiry:
What do you understand when you read the word "slave"?
ok little man, since you're apparently incapable of reading a fucking dictionary, that would be a state wherein an actor has complete and total legal control over the existence of another human being and this state is unquestioned by society.
your writing is fucking cringeworthy dude. You're ben shapiro without the charm or knowledge of vaginas.
➽ since you're apparently incapable of reading a fucking dictionary,
A fucking dictionary does NOT tell me what YOU believe, does it. <no question mark. rhetorical question.
So... Gasorminumplaz.
way to go big derp, I literally answered your fucking question and you ignored it to argue MORE about semantics. You're useless.
➽ I literally answered your fucking question and you ignored it to argue MORE about semantics. You're useless.
There's a difference between ignoring something and addressing it at a later time.
Your animosity at me... Name call all you want. That makes no difference to me. And that IS being ignored by me.
So here I am, finding that you have no knowledge of Voltaire's admonition: If you want to communicate, define your terms. You ignored Gasorminumplaz, so you MUST already ass u me you know its definition. Or you just ignored it. Which means you are calling me by your maiden name.
Getting back to this defining of terms... I will NOT allow equivocation be it deliberate or lazy thinking.
You and I have NOT come to an agreement as to what a "slave" is... Even though I claimed that is what you are.
You have claimed that a slave is a human in
➽ a state wherein an actor has complete and total legal control over the existence of another human being and this state is unquestioned by society.
I am assuming that is a copy-paste from a dictionary. If so, that dictionary is wrong.
Such an unquestioning society is an immoral society.
Are you part of such an unquestioning society?
What is the difference in "total legal control" and "total control" the law notwithstanding?
bud, you're comparing paying taxes, a normal part of human society since ancient times, with slavery, the literal ownership of another person. You're in a completely different space of reality from what normal people think of as slavery, and being entirely hyperbolic about it.
as for the animosity, it's because I don't give a singular fuck about your sad little rules of engagement as defined by a dead Frenchman. The moment they aren't convenient to your argument, I presume you pick different rules and argue like the wheedly little semantic jerkoff that you are.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2022, 01:54:23 PM by Dale Eastman »
Natural Law Matters
