RE: Ideologically Undermining Society. [Part 1] Social Contracts.
he has in the past sought to argue that I have no moral integrity because I didn't drop the issue of the inception/creation of the police force which he argued was to protect liberty which couldn't be farther from the truth as I kept pointing out that they were formed directly from slave catching patrols,
This couldn't be farther from the truth. You have no moral integrity because you compare a system that has long since passed to a system that is in place now. It would be the same proposition as me saying "I enjoy dating black men and women" and someone saying "Well slave owners like to fuck their slaves". The level of intellectual integrity you have is....by impair the same as those egregious progressive liberals.
I ended the conversation on the first post because I knew exactly how it would end, in a completely contrary stance for each of us, but you kept up the drama. You really are disingenuous.
I have no moral integrity after the nth time I argued the same thing.. The first time you abandoned/forgot about the conversation, where as now you claim prophetic vision for your "ending the conversation", making you a liar as you either forgotten, or you ended it because of your prophetic vision. Right there I have no reason to continue but for the posterity of truth, regardless of your blatant lies, because who is to say if you forgot, if you ended it because of your prophetic vision or simply didn't have any evidence to back up the claim that you made repeatedly without one ounce of evidence for it, a claim which your whole argument pretty much hinged on, and that was after I exposed that you omitted and proceed to distort the OPs initial statements, two times.
I provided ample evidence to the contrary that the system that has passed is actually the tree from which the current system fruited out of, so there is every reason to point out the similarity and I have provided evidence of that as well, so then to insist by implying yet again that one system has nothing to do with the other because one has passed and the other is in place is disingenuous and farthest from the truth, one system has passed and out of it's very foundations and members it morphed into the current system. To say that the police and it's predecessors, the slave catching patrols are two different things you must distinguish why and how they are different and you have not, instead you sought to marginalize and minimize their semblance by claiming that the slave catching patrols were on par with bounty hunters when it was an established and state ran function, not private, just like the police which evolved directly from that system.
You ended the conversation, I think you are being nice on yourself, you abandoned it, and you still haven't provided any evidence that the police were established to maintain liberty, instead you dodged and skirted that request numerous times, regardless of your prophetic vision, and right now you are a liar, uttering the word disingenuous is laughable.
I restate my claim that you argued that I have no moral integrity because I wouldn't drop the issue of the inception/creation of the police.
And this is why:
In the previous arguments you first abandoned the issue or outright disregarded it because of your prophetic vision or because you had nothing to substantiate your claim that the police maintain liberty. After that you then proceed to claim that your argument wasn't necessarily a great claim and requiring great proof, when I brought back the issue to point out that if you hold such values of great claims require great proof, by making such claims and not offering any proof you are a hypocrite, to which you didn't argue that I have no moral integrity, but only that it wasn't that great of a claim, making the proof of it not that great but you didn't provide anything yet again to substantiate that small claim But then when I wouldn't still drop it you argued moral integrity as the last time, that time by claiming that the slave catching patrols were on par with bounty hunters, another lie, as they were established by the state ran by the state, just like the police. That is why and how you resorted to saying I have no moral integrity, because I wouldn't drop the issue. Previously you sought to claim that because only anarchist disagree with the claim that police are established to maintain liberty and so it's not that great of a claim, yet you cannot substantiate that small claim, so you are a hypocrite by extension of your principles.
The rub is to claim that they are established to maintain liberty and law. That is ridiculous in it of itself, as the police are tasked with imprisoning and upholding mandates/laws, and not with maintaining any liberty what so ever, coupled with the fact that their "bounty hunter" predecessors were tasked with EXACTLY the same duty, to uphold mandates and imprison, which is why they are on par and equivalent to their fathers. You are a liar, a hypocrite, have resorted to omitting pertinent statements and arguments and effectively sought to distort the original message, claim magical prophetic vision and in the end you cannot even substantiate your marginal claim which your entire argument hinged on, which was that police are not a gang because they were established to maintain liberty and law, regardless of the fact that they have the characteristics of a gang, and if it looks like a gang, acts like a gang and quacks like a gang, it's the police.
To tie it into the "social contract", I didn't agree to their actions, and don't respect their actions, millions have done the same, "not just anarchists" and the history of the police follows: slave catching patrols>kkk supporters and ties>targeting and attacking minorities>subverting "privileges"/rights> and all thorough out it they were tasked with investigating crimes and they have failed epic at that since their inception.
Former Decorated Cop Says Abolish All Police
Maintaining liberty LOL!
Maintaining law LOL! (everything the SS did was legal, so much for morality when your linchpin is to defend immorality)