Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule

Great Debates
421

I was with you up until your last paragraph, when all of a sudden, you started speaking in tongues. :wink:

422

Obviously, I should not have posted from my short screen tablet without reviewing the entire post that would go out. :slight_smile:

423

When I need cheering up, I search youtube for “freeman tased”.

424

Offered:

The above is quoted so as to accurately identify the subject matter that sets in motion, or causes, the action known as a response.

The words in quotes is alone. The words in quotes is lacking reference. The lack of reference for the cause that inspired the action of responding with the words quoted is noted.

A formerly federated (voluntary association) group of people known as The British caused a list of names to be written upon a list.

The people were alive and then those people were no longer alive. They did not die of natural causes: so called.

A formerly federated (voluntary association) group of people known as the people of the United States of America under The Articles of Confederation outlawed slavery in at least one independent state.

A number of people who are not even listed were alive at the time the federation still existed as a voluntary association. Then slavery was subsidized and a number of people were bought and sold for profit because there was no effective defense, and worse, the crime of slavery was paid for by “National Tax” Funds.

Those who know this do.

Those who prefer never to acknowledge this expend their energy to ignore these facts.

Ignorance is said to be bliss. Professional liars also make a living.

425

Oh, the irony.

426

“Offered”??
What do you mean by “Offered”? This isn’t a contract or business transaction of any sort. This is a conversation taking place between people on a message board on the internet. For what reason do you avoid using the word “said” when quoting others?

427

To whom exactly are you referring to by this?

428

It’s why he spells BAR in all caps.

429

A BAR is a Browning Automatic Rifle, of course.

The OP reminds me of the poster who used to refer to Canada as “Kanada,” as if that would make us all aware of the Fascist/Nazi/Communist/Socialist/Whateverist true nature of Canada. Nobody listened to that poster then, and based on that experience, I see no need to listen to the OP now.

430

Your belief that you are communicating in English or otherwise exchanging information is incorrect. This thread began as nonsensical rumblings and when asked for clarity you produce ersatz oxen koans.

431

The list is of all the prisoners held at Wallabout Bay, not of those prisoners who died, so your premise is wrong.
Many prisoners did die from the poor health conditions on the prison ships. They were not, however, murdered as your statement poorly implies. The conditions for maintaining prisoners of war in the eighteenth century were routinely poor. This was a terrible thing that the Geneva conventions of over 100 years later attempted to address, but they are not examples of murder.

Repeating this claim (and repeating this claim and repeating this claim), does not make it true. It demonstrates that you are fixated on an idea and unconcerned with actual facts.

432

Why does this sound familiar? :smiley:

433

Not true. But even if it was, the Constitution of the United States, through the amendment process, outlawed slavery in all of the remaining states.

Divisions are thus:

  1. People who accept the Constitution and abide by the Rule of Law

  2. People who refuse to accept the truth

434

Divisions are thus :

  1. People who divide everyone into two groups.

  2. People who deny the groups exist.

435

Joe I don’t understand your argument: A formerly federated (voluntary association) group of people known as the people of the United States of America under The Articles of Confederation ***did not ***outlaw slavery in all states. On two counts it was CRIMINAL and ceased having authority of its acts including amendment of the Constitution regarding slavery. Slavery still exists. RULE OF LAW is by way of Paul’s Epistle to Philemon 1:1-1:25: return slaves and ask slave owners to be nice.

We’ll just have to disagree on this one, Josef, for I think that the USA’s constitution was and is the supreme law of the land in the USA, so its 13th amendment stands, regardless of you not believing in the authority of the constitution, and regardless of you believing in the law of slavery in the new testament. Good luck in re-instituting slavery on a constitutional technicality.

436

The following words are offered in response to other words offered:

Here are other words offered:

A formerly federated (voluntary association) group of people known as the people of the United States of America under The Articles of Confederation outlawed slavery in at least one independent state.

  1. The states are federated, and therefore independent, so the people in at least one state can outlaw slavery, because the are independent, and so they did outlaw slavery. That is offered, and it was a competitive sanctuary for runaway slaves running away from criminal human traffickers.

  2. A response is to claim a lack of understanding concerning what was offered and then that one who does not understand is the one who then offers words concerning a power that was not abused, in part because it was a power not given, to people running the federal congress under The Articles of Confederation: they could not (while congress was part of a federal union) make slavery “legal” in all states.

Back to the offer of words offered in open Debate:

I do not argue, what would be the point? The information offered in the historical record shows the following evidence by official sounding testimony:

http://www.rightsofthepeople.com/freedom_documents/anti_federalist_papers/anti_federalist_papers_15.php

Arguments, as far as my experience goes, cause people to “win” at any cost, so long as the “loser” is made to pay the costs.

Moving on:

As to the competitive idea (offered by people in one group) that the casualties of Aggressive War for Profit (The British were the aggressors in the Revolutionary War) are not murder victims because the murderers, and those on their side, say so, as to that idea from another point of view, they, those on the Murder by Aggressive War for Profit side, they offer proof of their authority, as to that idea, which is a competitive idea for sure, as it is what it is, and the proof does pile up, as the argument commences when the murderers initiate the commencement of hostilities.

That argument is an argument that is “won” by those who perpetrate Aggressive War for Profit as a Rule: they win their argument by murdering the opposition, as a rule. That is how those murderers rule. They give themselves license to murder at will, and they manage to pile up a lot of “casualties” including a lot of “Collateral Damage” piled onto piles of murder victim bodies.

Inculpatory evidence.

Divisions are therefore:

  1. Those who understand that willful use of public funds so as to initiate War of Aggression for Profit is unlawful and cause to act in defense of innocent victims who are targeted by the murderous criminals: those who fought on the Liberty side in the Revolutionary War for one example of people in this group.

  2. Murderers who make their murders legal for them to perpetrate while anyone else suspected of questioning murderous authority is a problem in need of a final solution: those who fought on the murderous criminal rule side, known as The British, for one example of people in this group.

Returning back to the actual Topic is not my form of “argument,” rather it is merely an opportunity to offer information useful in debate as the information concerns the actual topic subject matter.

  1. Those who offer information relevant to the actual topic debated.

  2. Those who target individuals and an argument is offered as to the relative worth of the individual who is targeted personally.

437

Shucks, I’m all out of salad dressing.

438

Which specific post are you responding to with this missive?

439

Is our friend able to count to three. or are all these two-fold divisions just different labels for the same groups. For convenience can we label these two groups;

  1. Josf
  2. Everyone else?
440

I might call it epistemic closure, but that’s a little misleading. I suspect the closure is driven by other factors. Question begging, or assuming the conclusion, is more relevant.
I’m trying to mine this discussion for sociological or rhetorical insights. Let me follow up with my argument via association framework. I used to think that argument was composed of 2 components. But actually there are 3:
[ul]
[li]Facts (observation)[/li][li]Logic[/li][li]Emotive Buttons.[/li][/ul] Buttons are pretty important. I make a fair amount of use of loaded language on this message board: it complements factual evidence and substantiated claims pretty well. But you can secure an audience just with buttons. Donald Trump is a terrific practitioner of this technique: factual refutations just bounce off his supporters. As for logic, I’ll quote part of post I made in the elections forum:

Segueing from a discussion of capitalism to a terrorist organization makes no logical sense. But such emotive language certainly lights up the neurons, much like a jingle that you can’t get out of your head. I had thought that buttons were a complement to facts and valid logic. But for some they can wholly crowd them out.

For some, buttons can carry the conversation on their own: some will draw conclusions on the basis of them, even if their factual backing is refuted.