You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Noam Chomsky: "The general population doesn’t know what’s happening, and it doesn’t even know that it doesn’t know..!!"
Couldn't let dead dogs stay dead.
Again, we're at a completely fundamental approach. What you're talking about are "proto-police" forces that the south had before the civil war. Before that time during the colonies, they were equal to bounty hunters and that's it. You're morally bankrupt if you have nothing else to compare them to than things that have been long since gone for a decade+. You've committed an ad hoc plain and simple.
'dead dog' is not an argument, it is a cop out.
He brought this drama from another post way before this. There was no argument intended, nor do I care to continue to discuss with him about this topic. His intent is an obsessive meandering of said topics that, if another stops talking to that should indicate that they're not interested anymore, are more or less frivolous at this point.
I already know his position plain and clear, and we're not going to reach any impasse because he's all the way down on the libertarian scale.
People usually find the game is no fun when they are losing.
And that's where we differ. I don't see any position as "winning" or "losing" in regards to each other. It is a discussion that happens, and when one person gets either tired or frustrated (which in this case I became frustrated with Baah's incessant bringing up of unnecessary drama). Again, there is not going to be any impasse. He's either a stonch right libertarian or an an-cap, and those are positions that I disagree with.
Reading into anything other than that is a stretch.
Being correct is in this instance, is it's own reward. If you are more interested in masturbatory marathons of verbally flogging nonsense than achieving possession of understanding, then, mission accomplished. You seem to think there is no object to the search, and no such thing as facts. Being tired or frustrated has no bearing on the reason, or lack thereof, in the argument. Becoming bored with defending the claims you've made does not render your argument correct. If I have gathered anything from my interactions with @baah, I can say that @baah is neither a STAUNCH right libertarian or an an-cap. This misapprehension further demonstrates a need of learning what words mean. It is clear that there is no desire on your part to gain accurate communication, but only to see how carefully you can misunderstand an argument with which you disagree.
You're reading way into this.
Being tired or frustrated is reason enough to be done with something that has no baring on literally anything else, as it was just a discussion. Again, reading into this as anything other than two opposing positions is a massive stretch.
And whatever baah is or isn't has become more so irrelevant to me now, I realize that. Whatever label it is, we're going to disagree regardless.
Facts are not opinions.
Bearing is spelled BEARING.
Stretch does not have mass.
If the label is 'correct' it would be unwise to disagree with the argument. I find no obvious flaws in @baah 's arguments. In your arguments I find inability to use and understand basic words.
It's 2 a.m. I'm inclined to make a few writing mistakes, get over it.
I see what you're doing, and I'm not having any part in it. Good day.
Your entire argument is derived from the same fantasy as before, now though you've danced around providing any evidence that police were the result of maintaining liberty, instead you focused on marginalizing the purpose of slave patrols to bounty hunters, and their inception and those implications of their purpose into things that have been long since gone, when nothing is further from the truth as you can see in statistics of cop on black violence.
No they weren't bounty hunters, they were institutionalized:
No, these things have not long been gone:
No ad hoc, plain and simple, it's providing evidence counter to your claim that they were established to maintain liberty. Nothing is further from the truth:
Law enforcement has never been about maintaining liberty, period, and it certainly isn't about that today. It's about the immorality of imposing the will of people that have the delegated rights that individuals cannot have, nor delegate. Moral bankruptcy is to defend such things and to skirt around such issues, as long as a group of people can do what no individuals are allowed to do, such as impose arbitrary mandates, enforce those mandates, kidnap and murder those that break or resist their mandates, extort wealth through the threat of force or coercion, as long as you are for these things you have no moral ground to stand on, your linchpin is defending immorality.