Discord - YDOM - Natural Law

[Dale Eastman]

➽ I've got to say this excerpt is leaving me with so many more questions than it resolved.

⇉ Natural Law is your unalienable right to protect all of your Natural Rights from those who would attempt to encroach upon and violate those rights.  This means: If I attempt to harm you, my right to not be harmed by you is forfeit to you.

➽ I still don't know what Natural Law is, because I don't know what this author means by "Natural rights".  It seems odd to use the term "right" to mean "right to protect rights", and I don't know how I would determine if a thing is a right or not, even given their example.  Do I have the right to eat?  Do I have the right to go where I please?  Do I have the right to defend my person from the violence you use on me upon finding me on "your" property eating food from "your" tree?  Do I have the "Natural right" to retaliate the violence you cause upon my son or friend who did this?  Without some test as to what is and is not a Natural Right, I cannot use this definition of Natural Law.

⇉ Natural Law is Quid pro Quo.  Something for Something.  That Something could be a positive or a negative.

➽ Again, the same problem arises.  What is the Something and when does it work logically?  I take from you therefore you do not feel the pain of my beating you.  You give me your shiny object and I leave you alone.  You stop me from going where I wish and I attack your family.  All of these seem to fulfill the Quid pro Quo set, but I wouldn't think any are very desirable.  This test seems flawed, and another definition I cannot use.

⇉ Natural Law is YDOM (You Don't Own Me). YDOM is the initial natural state of being. YDOM is a self-evident truth. YDOM means: I don't own you; your life; your liberty, or your property. Since I don't own you, I do not have any authority over you. Lacking this authority over you, I can not delegate it (give it or sell it) to any body else. Since nobody else owns you either, Nobody else has authority over you either.

➽ YDOM is self evident, so everyone understands that they cannot own property of another.  Except that it seems people very often don't understand such.  Children must be taught that what they desire is not theirs, or they simply take it.  So property cannot be self evident.  Is liberty self evident?  I have not seen many examples that children know they can go as far as they wish from their parents, but that may be learned behavior.  This also seems at odds at times with property ownership- do you have the liberty to go onto another's property?  I would think that owning yourself and your life might be self evident, but when grouped with the others here it makes me question that.  If it is self-evident, is there anyone who disagrees (as such might be a case for why it is not self-evident)?  A communist might say you belong to a collective.  A religion might say you belong to their God.  What makes Natural Law correct here and them wrong?

⇉ Primum non nocere Latin for First, do no harm. To put this in other words, Do not initiate force, violence, or harm against others. This does not preclude you from responding to initiated force and violence with your own defensive force and violence. The logical extension of Do no harm is to use only the least amount of defensive force and violence against the aggressor as required to stop the initiated force, violence, and harm. In other circles this is referred to as NAP and ZAP. (Non Aggression Principle and Zero Aggression Principle.) NAP and ZAP does not mean Pacifism. In my opinion, Pacifism is a method of inducing self harm by not protecting one's self from external harm.

➽ I do not see how "First"  and "Do no harm" equate to "only do harm after another does harm", nor do I see how to determine from this what level of response I should have against aggression.  A guy in my house at night without my permission is a threat to my life, and I will respond as such.  Is that the "least amount of defensive force"?
I might have been able to just ask them to leave.  That might have given them a chance to attack or kill me.  How do I use this in any way as an objective measurement?

⇉ If you have, for whatever reason, initiated harm against another human, repair the harm to the victim's satisfaction. This should not be too hard to understand. Imagine if you were harmed in the same way. What would you want as compensation and repair of the harm? Offer that to the human you harmed, and if agreed to, make it happen, repair the harm you caused.

➽ "If agreed to" seems to be pulling a lot of weight here.  What if I desire compensation you think unfair?  You broke my wooden fence, therefore I desire you to build me a brick wall.  If you don't agree, then how does this "rule" work?

⇉ There are no collective human rights without individual human rights.

➽ Not even going to post the rest of that.  What is a collective right?  This is another new term that is not defined.  What collectives must I be a part of to get a "right"?  Which collectives prevent my getting a "right"?  Is the same as a "Natural Right" and denying it under these terms allows me to use violence upon you?

⇉ Natural Law Tool
⇉ I will give you one tool YOU can use to free yourself from your slavery: YDOM.  YDOM means You Don't Own Me.
⇉ It's the mindset of a free mind.
⇉ Here's how it will work:  Since you know that nobody owns you, you know that you do not need to obey the commands and demands that you know will cause you harm.  Anytime a tyrant (a government official) or criminal (I repeat myself) attempts to control you, just assume they intend to cause you harm; be it financial, physical, psychological, or emotional.  If you are a prudent person, you will have already decided and planned the best method to curtail such attempted victimization and use that method as planned.  There are those who believe they own others in spite of "YDOM!" being shouted from the rooftops. These tyrants and criminals must be resisted at every opportunity. A society of increasing YDOMists, would have the self defensive duty of educating the brainwashed, indoctrinated, inculcated dumb masses who need to awaken to rejecting and resisting their slavery.  YDOMists would know that government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control, and would resist extortionists because extortionists do NOT own their victims.

➽ I can appreciate the desire to be free.  I can also see quite easily how such a "tool" can be fatal for the person using it, especially if they have not been able to determine who is a "criminal tyrant attempting to control you".  "Don't go on my property" "You don't own me!" (Gunshots ensue). Absent context, is this a property owner defending their house, or a tyrant stopping someone from entering unowned (or "collectively" owned) property?
"STOP! DONT GO IN THERE!"  "You don't own me!"  (Insert dangerous situation of your choice- electrical wires in water, fire that was contained rapidly expanding, dangerous animals attacking, delicate immunocompromised individuals dying) A dangerous tool that can be easily misused is not one I would give without warnings.


1329 Words.

[Dale Eastman]

Discord has a 2000 character limit. This reply has 21,430 21,014 characters. The entirety of this reply, with color formatting, can be found here: https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1767.msg17143#msg17143

I do not know if you are genuinely interested in an honest discussion about Natural Law or if your mind is already made up with your, ah... ideas.

➽ I can appreciate the desire to be free.

Sorry. I don't believe you. The meta-message I get from your words is that you are posting "anti-Natural Law" words. Your "excuses" for why Natural Law can't support one's desire to be free are clear to me. Your words made me remember what I read in about 1981. The name of your game is  Why Don’t You – Yes But This game is running concurrent with this other game: I’m Only Trying to Help You

➽ I do not see how "First"  and "Do no harm" equate to "only do harm after another does harm"

Are you claiming you do not understand: DO NOT INITIATE aggression and harm to others?

➽ [...]nor do I see how to determine from this what level of response I should have against aggression.

Are you claiming you can not see when your escalating defensive violence convinces the initiating aggressor to end their attack?

➽ A guy in my house at night without my permission is a threat to my life, and I will respond as such.

You have NOT defined what "I will respond as such" means to you as you are using the phrase. Known as Voltaire's Admonition, "If you wish to communicate, define your terms." Please present what YOU mean with that phrase.

➽ I might have been able to just ask them to leave.  That might have given them a chance to attack or kill me.  How do I use this in any way as an objective measurement?

Your statement: "I will respond as such" tells me you have already measured the threat and made your choice on how to deal with the threat. Are you saying that you can not assess the threat level of an unknown person invading your home at night? There are sufficient anecdotes of the snick-snick of a shotgun shell being chambered that dissuaded potential attackers from their intent. What will keep you alive?

➽ "If agreed to" seems to be pulling a lot of weight here.  What if I desire compensation you think unfair?  You broke my wooden fence, therefore I desire you to build me a brick wall.  If you don't agree, then how does this "rule" work?

Are you admitting that you don't know what it means to "negotiate" an agreement? If you are demanding more compensation than what you lost, Fuck you and the feud starts. Maybe that was the original cause of the Hatfield-McCoy feud...

I wrote:
⇉ YDOM means You Don't Own Me. It's the mindset of a free mind. Since you know that nobody owns you, you know that you do not need to obey the commands and demands that you know will cause you harm.  Anytime a tyrant (a government official) or criminal (I repeat myself) attempts to control you, just assume they intend to cause you harm; be it financial, physical, psychological, or emotional.  If you are a prudent person, you will have already decided and planned the best method to curtail such attempted victimization and use that method as planned.  There are those who believe they own others in spite of "YDOM!" being shouted from the rooftops. These tyrants and criminals must be resisted at every opportunity. A society of increasing YDOMists, would have the self defensive duty of educating the brainwashed, indoctrinated, inculcated dumb masses who need to awaken to rejecting and resisting their slavery.  YDOMists would know that government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control, and would resist extortionists because extortionists do NOT own their victims.

I have broken up your non sequitur compound paragraph to highlight where you did not pay attention to the concepts I presented.

➽ I can also see quite easily how such a "tool" can be fatal for the person using it, [...]

Too bad you couldn't see how to easily explain how the "tool" COULD "be fatal  for the person using it." Why don't you explain exactly how the tool of knowing YDOM and Natural Law is going to be fatal for the human using it.

➽ I can also see quite easily how such a "tool" can be fatal for the person using it, especially if they have not been able to determine who is a "criminal tyrant attempting to control you".

Your spew and attempts to Distract, Deflect, Divert, Disrupt, and/or Derail the very specific points contained in the concept of YDOM is recognized and so noted.

Here's my words again... Try reading them this time: you know that you do not need to obey the commands and demands that you know will cause you harm. Intent to harm precedes action to cause that harm. TDC - Threats, Duress, and Coercion is how asshole humans in government control other humans. Do what they tell you to do or they will hurt you.

But you claim to be unable to recognize when a human is using TDC to control you.

➽ YDOM is self evident, so everyone understands that they cannot own property of another.

Let's make sure you understood the words the acronym explains: YDOM  = You Don't Own Me.

Is YDOM a true statement? Is it true that You Don't Own Me. Would the statement also be true if you said it to me? You Dale, Don't Own Me? Are you claiming that slave ownership is not immoral? Or are you immoral and think owning others is okay?

➽ YDOM is self evident, so everyone understands that they cannot own property of another.  Except that it seems people very often don't understand such.

There is a particular sub-group of people who don't (or refuse to) understand that they cannot own property of another: Officers, Agents, and Employees that work for government; Stupid Statists that believe government protects them; and Votards (Voting retards). Those humans are the specific group YDOM focuses on...

How does ANY government get funds to do government things. It uses TDC to extract funds from the people.

You do  correctly observe that children must be taught to respect other's ownership of their justly acquired property.

➽ Children must be taught that what they desire is not theirs, or they simply take it.

You mean like politicians that simply take the property of others by the laws they write? Perhaps they were not taught properly by their parents. More likely, they were taught lies by government schools to the point that "consensus reality"  is achieved. This indoctrinated "consensus reality" is simply and provably WRONG.

➽ So property cannot be self evident.

You have focused on the sub-group of humans that are children. You have deliberately ignored adults who should know how to adult. Which means those humans should have already learned, If it's not your property, It's not your property.

Do YOU understand that YOU are WRONG, IMMORAL, and A THIEF if you take property that is not yours? All of your words seem designed to be skeptical of and debunk Natural Law. I reject your uninformed anti-Natural Law narrative.

➽ Is liberty self evident? 

What, exactly, is YOUR definition of "liberty" as YOU are using the word?

➽ Is liberty self evident? 

Not to government school graduates. Twelve years in a Government Indoctrination Center removes understanding of Liberty. Deliberately and by design.

➽ I have not seen many examples that children know they can go as far as they wish from their parents, but that may be learned behavior.

This is another non sequitur. It has no connection to YDOMism and/or Natural Law.

➽ This also seems at odds at times with property ownership- do you have the liberty to go onto another's property?

Only with the human property owner's permission.

What is the point you are attempting to present? Because you are failing to articulate what you want others to think about.

➽ I would think that owning yourself and your life might be self evident, but when grouped with the others here it makes me question that.

Are you claiming that you don't know if you own yourself? Are you claiming you don't own yourself because of what others in this collective tell you about your self-ownership.

➽ If it is self-evident, is there anyone who disagrees (as such might be a case for why it is not self-evident)?

Clearly you disagree that owning your self is self-evident. So why don't you explain how this attitude and opinion of yours makes ownership of self not self-evident?

➽ A communist might say you belong to a collective.  A religion might say you belong to their God.  What makes Natural Law correct here and them wrong?

Does the collective actually own me? Does the religion actually own me? The answer to both is "NO", so I DON'T belong to a collective nor a religion. Your example is very disingenuous. To be owned by another is to be a slave.

A slave is a human whose owner's free will overrides the slave's free will. Pick cotton or get the whip. If you are not 100% free of your owner's demands on your life, liberty, or property, then you are a slave. There is no middle ground.

Is the collective making demands of me that actually harm me? Is the religion (collective) making demands of me that actually harm me?

➽ What is a collective right?  This is another new term that is not defined.

Let's start with the single word term, "collective". Is this not a grouping of more than one? Is this the definition of collective that you are using?

What grouping of more than one would a communist claim I am part of? A religion is not a human. A religion is a collective of like minded humans. What grouping of more than one would a religion claim I am part of?  Did each and every human in that religion (collective) claim I am part of that collective?

➽ What is a collective right?  This is another new term that is not defined.

Using your own inquiry format to answer it: What is a collective power?

One person pulling on a rope to move a heavy mass is an individual power. More than one individual (a collective) pulling on that same rope is a collective power. If no individuals are pulling that rope, then there is no collective power. Before there can be a collective power there must be an individual power. Before there can be a collective right there must be individual rights.

➽ What collectives must I be a part of to get a "right"?

Are you a live, living human? In human society do you have a right to life? Is it a reasonable expectation that most humans in that society won't try to harm you?

➽ Which collectives prevent my getting a "right"?

The Ruling Class which you are not a part of.

➽ Is [a collective right] the same as a "Natural Right" and denying it under these terms allows me to use violence upon you?

Please present the context that you think would allow you to use violence upon me? There is NO context that would suggest you are allowed to INITIATE harm and aggression to another human. Your choice of the words you use makes me wonder if you actually understand that point.

Your inarticulate use of words does not clearly convey what I am forced to assume is your intent to equate a collective right and a Natural Right. Are you part of the collective group called "human"? Do you have a right to not have aggression and harm initiated against you? Do you have a right to initiate aggression and harm against others who have done NO HARM TO YOU.

Now returning to your anti-YDOM BS...

⇉ I will give you one tool YOU can use to free yourself from your slavery: YDOM.  YDOM means You Don't Own Me. It's the mindset of a free mind.

Admit or Deny with evidence that YDOM IS the mindset of a free mind.

Admit or Deny that:  Since you know that nobody owns you, you know that you do not need to obey the commands and demands that you know will cause you harm. Of course you can play stupid and pretend that you don't understand what will and will not cause YOU harm.

I very clearly articulated the context and situation where YDOM is in order as a response. You have chosen to ignore the context and situation presented. Your attempt to Straw Man the point is noted.

➽ I can also see quite easily how such a "tool" can be fatal for the person using it, [...] if they have not been able to determine who is a "criminal tyrant attempting to control you".

Are you claiming that you can't determine when some other person is using TDC to attempt to control you?
Are you claiming that other humans can't determine when some other person is attempting to control them?
Are you claiming that you can't understand only tyrants attempt to rule others?
Are you claiming that you don't understand any person attempting to rule you by using TDC  is by definition a criminal?
Are you claiming that you have never heard the term, Crimes against humanity?

➽ "Don't go on my property" "You don't own me!" (Gunshots ensue). Absent context, is this a property owner defending their house, or a tyrant stopping someone from entering unowned (or "collectively" owned) property?

This is something you imagined. Why don't you tell us what the missing context is since you are making shit up attempting to straw man my YDOM & Natural Law points... Without actually addressing my points as written nor understanding nor wanting to understand the points I made.

➽ "STOP! DONT GO IN THERE!"  "You don't own me!"

Your muddled writing is betraying your muddled thinking. How am I to interpret your non sequitur?

➽ "STOP! DONT GO IN THERE!"

Is this a warning or a tyrant's command? Your imaginary situation, your missing context.

➽ "STOP! DONT GO IN THERE!"  "You don't own me!"  (Insert dangerous situation of your choice- electrical wires in water, fire that was contained rapidly expanding, dangerous animals attacking, delicate immunocompromised individuals dying)

You don't proof-read what you write before you hit the send button, do you? I am forced to assume a dialogue when written as a monologue. A dialogue you imagine while pretending my instructions didn't get posted.

➽ A dangerous tool that can be easily misused is not one I would give without warnings.

I presented instructions... Instructions you chose to ignore... So apparently you are a public school graduate that believes you are literate, and is pretending to think critically about what I presented. So as I have done many a time with alleged thinkers <cough-spit> such as you, I will be forced to present my points one at a time, singly, so I can check and insure that you understand what I wrote.

Are you claiming instructions for use need a specific warning, "Follow these instructions exactly for your safety"?

The first instruction:
"[Y]ou know that you do not need to obey the commands and demands that you know will cause you harm."

Quite clearly the precursor to using this tool is having harm attempted against yourself. A point you ignored to make up your imagined dialogue scenario to further your anti-Natural Law, anti-YDOMism narrative.

The second instruction:
"Anytime a tyrant (a government official) or criminal (I repeat myself) attempts to control you, just assume they intend to cause you harm; be it financial, physical, psychological, or emotional."

So again I question your ability to recognize deliberate harm attempted against you.

The third instruction:
"you will have already decided and planned the best method to curtail such attempted victimization and use that method as planned."

Are you claiming you couldn't understand the tool's purpose is to curtail attempted victimization?

➽ I still don't know what Natural Law is, because I don't know what this author means by "Natural rights".
Damn. That means I must do a better job. I thought my words were clear. Apparently not.
✨
The Declaration of Liberty claims we humans have a right-to-life. Fuck around with a Copperhead and find out the snake doesn't understand the human concept of rights. These rights are the unwritten social contract between humans. That being said, Do you have a reasonable expectation to not be harmed by other humans? Is it a reasonable concept that you defend yourself from harm and attacks from other Humans? Is it reasonably logical to increase your use of defensive force until the attack ends?

➽ Do I have the right to go where I please?

I'm interpreting your question as, In other words, Do I have a right under liberty and freedom to do whatever I want? Some old dead guy wrote:
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.

Are you claiming you can't recognize the equal rights of other humans?

➽ Without some test as to what is and is not a Natural Right, I cannot use this definition of Natural Law.

You have a Natural Right to life by being alive. Just like the Copperhead cited above. Fuck with nature and find out. Fuck with another human and find out.

➽ What is the Something[...]?

Quid pro Quo: You attempt to harm me, I attempt to return the same. That is the something for something.

➽ I take from you therefore you do not feel the pain of my beating you.

Just like the Copperhead cited above. Fuck around with me and find out. Quid pro Quo

➽ This test seems flawed, and another definition I cannot use.

Your deliberate obtuseness indicates that you already have a narrative stuck in your mind, so you are attempting to debunk and maybe demonize the concept of Natural Law.

➽ How do I use this in any way as an objective measurement?

Objective? Either you have harmed another or you have not. Clear to me. Either you have harmed another deliberately or unintentionally. Clear to me. Especially if that other tells you what you did to harm them. Either another has done harm to you or another has not.

You appear to me to be claiming that you don't recognize harm. Was it your intent to imply that you don't recognize harm?

➽ I still don't know what Natural Law is, because I don't know what this author means by "Natural rights".

Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating someone else's rights). Natural law is the law of natural rights.

The idea of human rights derives from theories of natural rights. Those rejecting a distinction between human rights and natural rights view human rights as the successor that is not dependent on natural law, natural theology, or [...]

In philosophy, the natural order is the moral source from which natural law seeks to derive its authority. Natural order encompasses the natural relations of beings to one another in the absence of law, which natural law attempts to reinforce.

➽ It seems odd to use the term "right" to mean "right to protect rights"

Do you have a right-to-life? Do you have a right-to-protect your life? Do you have a right'to-liberty? Do you have a right to protect your liberty? Do you have a right to your justly acquired property? Do you have a right to protect your property. Are these not your rights to protect your rights?

➽ and I don't know how I would determine if a thing is a right or not, even given their example.

Repeating: Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.

➽ Do I have the right to eat?

Your own justly acquired food... Sure.

➽ Do I have the right to go where I please?

Are you claiming you don't understand that trespass is harm being done to the rightful owner of the property you are on?

➽ Do I have the right to defend my person from the violence you use on me upon finding me on "your" property eating food from "your" tree?

Did you initiate harm to me by your trespass and stealing the fruit from my tree?

Rewording your disingenuous attempt to support your anti-Natural Law narrative you have asked: Do you have the right to use violence against someone protecting their property?- Do you have the right to be a violent car-jacker?

➽ Do I have the "Natural right" to retaliate the violence you cause upon my son or friend who did this?

Methinks you are claiming your moral compass has no needle.

➽ Without some test as to what is and is not a Natural Right, I cannot use this definition of Natural Law.

How's this for a test: Is the action moral or immoral?

➽ You give me your shiny object and I leave you alone.  You stop me from going where I wish and I attack your family.  All of these seem to fulfill the Quid pro Quo set, but I wouldn't think any are very desirable.  This test seems flawed, and another definition I cannot use.

I'm tiring of reading your bullshit narrative. Yet I must address your words as if they are honest attempts to understand my words.

[Dale Eastman]

You have posted 1329 words in reply to my short essays on Natural Law. 1329 words of which 550 are mine.
I have consolidated your multiple posts and copied-pasted-quoted those words here. Discord allows less characters in a post than Fecalbook does. Please review that page and insure I copied your words verbatim.

This conglomeration of words is the source material I will be using. I will be addressing your words and comments NOT in the order they were posted.

[Dale Eastman]

You seem to be claiming some guru knowledge that no one else has, and yet have not defined your own words.  When questioned, you repeatedly use terms like "anti-natural law narrative".  In this 12 page novel you wrote, you still haven't defined what your Natural Law that is inherently recognizable only by the few adults that seemingly already know it, so it seems subjective.  It is clear from your responses that you have no intention of addressing the problems inherent in your subjective preferences for how people should "legally" operate, so I have no intention of feeding your ego, which is what I assume is spreading this "narrative" since it cannot be logically attacked without being seen as attack upon yourself.  Have fun, stop spreading subjective nonsense as some ruleset and try advocating voluntaryism for a real change.

Have you ever heard of the KISS principle?
The Keep It Simple Stupid principle?

➽ I have no intention of feeding your ego, which is what I assume is spreading this "narrative" since it cannot be logically attacked without being seen as attack upon yourself.

𝟙 Admit or Deny: The above word are your words, correctly copy-pasted?

Part of KISSing this dialogue is asking for feedback on my claims, in order for my claims, if in error, to be challenged immediately.

𝟚 Admit or Deny: The "it" refers to my narrative?

𝟛 Admit or Deny: You have claimed that attacking my logic "could" be seen as an attack on myself; or in  other words "could" be seen as an ad hominem?

If and when you do an ad hominem attack, I will challenge "that" attack. I've got pretty thick internet skin.

𝟜 Admit or Deny: You claiming that attacking what you see as errors in my logic is feeding my ego?

The KISS method is to keep things as simple as possible, so here it is again:

What is natural law?

You have not yet defined it, other than using multiple pages of subjective ideas and attempts to avoid answering.  I can only assume from your lengthy (not keeping anything simple) replies you are not an honest interlocutor, which is exactly what my last post was heavily implying.  As such, I see no reason to continue the "conversation".

➽ What is natural law?
➽ You have not yet defined it,

I did define Natural Law and you quoted my words in YOUR 7/23 @08:12 post. Here it is a second time:
⇉ Natural Law is [...] This means: If I attempt to harm you, my right to not be harmed by you is forfeit to you.

Either you didn't read what I wrote; You deliberately ignored what I wrote; Or you are a fucking liar.

You also quoted my second definition words in YOUR 7/23 @08:12 post. Here it is a second time:

⇉ Natural Law is Quid pro Quo.  Something for Something.  That Something could be a positive or a negative.

You did not quote these words in my 8/1 @08:26 post:
Just like the Copperhead cited above. Fuck around with me and find out. Quid pro Quo

So let me help you understand: Natural Law is Fuck around with me or any other human and find out.

𝟝 Admit or Deny: You have not read John Locke's Second treatise of Government?

𝟞 Admit or Deny: I asked you 4 very succinct questions in my previous post. Who is avoiding answering?

Okay, so you truly aren't honest.  Got it.  Or you somehow believe my opinions and experiences should affect tye definition which you have failed to provide.  Let me do exactly what you did and you tell me if you believe I answer the question.

B: What is Xcrtr?

A: Xcrtr is when bad people are stopped.  You need to believe in Xcrtr or you can't stop bad people.

B: I don't know what that is, you haven't made sense.  I can't stop bad people without doing that.

A: Xcrtr is belief in yourself! Follow Xcrtr and you will be happier!

B: That still doesn't tell me what it is!

A: Xcrtr is when you hurt bad people!  You want bad people around?

B: But how does it define bad people or how to stop them?  How would you tell someone who doesn't understand, like a child?

A: Enough with your anti-Xcrtr narrative!  Every adult who is currently enslaved and raided under such a slave system knows what Xcrtr is!

B: So you won't tell me, got it.

A: I already have told you.  Xcrtr is stopping bad people.


Your "narrative" has not made logical sense.  You have yet to create a definition beyond "its just what I feel".  Your demand to know MY experiences, as if it would affect YOUR argument, only shows you to be dishonest.  At this point, you are just another troll, trying to divert people from thinking for themselves and following some other leader.


[Dale Eastman]

➽ I have no intention of feeding your ego, which is what I assume is spreading this "narrative" since it cannot be logically attacked without being seen as attack upon yourself.

𝟙 Admit or Deny: The above word are your words, correctly copy-pasted?

[Dale Eastman]

It's been six days..

[Dale Eastman]

You mean it's been 18 days since I asked for a valid definition that wasn't given.  As I said, you are trying to suck away time and energy.  Keep avoiding and I shall just start asking the same thing over and over since you won't answer it.  What is natural law?

➽ You mean it's been 18 days since I asked for a valid definition that wasn't given.

Posting for the THIRD time:
⇉ Natural Law is [...] This means: If I attempt to harm you, my right to not be harmed by you is forfeit to you.

Now I will change the perspective... Natural Law means if you attempt to harm me, you have forfeit your right to not be harmed by me.

Quote from: 8/2 @ 10:22:
I did define Natural Law and you quoted my words in YOUR 7/23 @08:12 post. Here it is a second time:
⇉ Natural Law is [...] This means: If I attempt to harm you, my right to not be harmed by you is forfeit to you.

Either you didn't read what I wrote; You deliberately ignored what I wrote; Or you are a fucking liar.

[Dale Eastman]

➽ I asked for a valid definition that wasn't given.

I did define Natural Law and you quoted my words in YOUR 7/23 @08:12 post:
⇉ Natural Law is [...] This means: If I attempt to harm you, my right to not be harmed by you is forfeit to you.

Just in case you couldn't or didn't understand those words here's the concept from a different perspective:
Natural Law means if you attempt to harm me, you have forfeit your right to not be harmed by me.

Why are you lying?

I have not lied at all.  Your ad hominem attacks prove my point, troll.  The first post in this thread is explaining why such a definition is subjective and invalid.  I asked for a VALID definition, not subjective nonsense that can be corrupted by anyone with half a brain.

➽ I asked for a VALID definition, not subjective nonsense that can be corrupted by anyone with half a brain.

You did NOT use the word VALID until 9 August @ 15:54 when you wrote and I quote: "You mean it's been 18 days since I asked for a valid definition that wasn't given. " You did NOT ask for a VALID definition in the 18 days prior to your 9 August post.

I will give you the benefit of doubt. I acknowledge that you did ask for "A" definition.
On 9 August @ 14:54 you asked:
➽ What is natural law?

You have claimed the definitions I provided were not VALID.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/valid
1: having legal efficacy or force
especially : executed with the proper legal authority and formalities
2a: well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful
b: logically correct
3: appropriate to the end in view : effective

You have claimed the definitions I provided were not VALID; You have now opined, and thus implied these five points as truth:
❶ not executed with the proper legal authority and formalities; 
❷ not well-grounded or justifiable;
❸ not relevant and meaningful;
❹ not logically correct;
❺ not appropriate.

Please post your evidence proving those claims are truth. Else: Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

On 23 July @ 20:12 you wrote:
➽ I cannot use this definition of Natural Law.

By rejecting the definition you were given, You have admitted to reading a definition posted before 23 July.

On 14 August @ 09:09 you told a second lie when you wrote:
➽ I have not lied at all.

Here it is... yet again...:
Natural Law means if you attempt to harm me, you have forfeit your right to not be harmed by me.

[Dale Eastman]

The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim, not anyone else.  It logically follows that anyone seeking a definition does not want an invalid one, but one that is valid.  Your refusal to recognize this shows even more about how you are trolling here.  You have yet again posted a subjective, therefore irrelevant, definition, as I said 23 days ago.  I gave examples showing why your definition is subjective, thus open for corruption.  You sought to use this as some sort of example of my position- which has not been posted and is NEVER relevant to your claims.  I have not made claims, but responded to your own.  You have throughout this sought to shift the burden of proof while thinking your proposal is unassailable.  You have not made any reasonable means for me to determine the validity of this still unclear term you call natural law, and your constant attacks show that you cannot even define it.  As I said, you have been wasting time.  I am not interested in anything else you post about this since you cannot give a single valid definition in close to a month.

➽ The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim, not anyone else.

You are correct.

➽ It logically follows that anyone seeking a definition does not want an invalid one, but one that is valid.

And with that claim the burden of proof is on you.

You are "nescient". You don't know what you don't know. "Ignorant" is choosing to continue to not know what one does not know. I will give you the benefit of doubt.

Known as Voltaire's Admonition, "If you wish to communicate, define your terms."

I have defined MY term multiple times in this thread, as well as on my website. MY term means exactly what I told you I mean when I use that term. I gave you a VALID definition of MY USE of the term. I even gave you an example explaining what Natural Law is in action. Here it is... Again:
Natural Law means if you attempt to harm me, you have forfeit your right to not be harmed by me.

Your own words right back at you: Your refusal to recognize this

➽ I am not interested in anything else you post about this since you cannot give a single valid definition in close to a month.

You don't consider the definition provided to be valid. This allows me to speculate as to why.
Govturds and Govtards don't like Natural Law because it says Fuck around with folks and find out. Like King George found out about his tea tax in 1776. Like King John found out in 1215.

You claim to not understand Natural Law. That would keep your hatred of Natural Law covert.

Are you a Govturd or a Govtard?

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1767.msg17165#msg17165