Pissed at life..

The BBQ Pit
21

Astounding resourcing Captain Amazing, thank you!
I do however disagree with your accusation of Sophomoric Philosophizing in regards to the term ‘coerce’.

Sound is a force which can be measured and felt physically.
Speech is a method of coersion. Typeset is a force which can be measured and felt physically. Typeset is a method of coersion.
The issue then becomes of consent.
Consent is a function of cognitice age, or the ‘dumb luck’ of acute knowledge possession.
This brings up the term ‘Informed consent’. Informed consent can only be coded into the law itself, as no human being can be trusted to know what informed consent is, or to even provide it if they understand that it will affect consent.

There is no human being who has been born on this earth who was consentually informed to the agreement of being born; they have equally not been recognized as such in law.

To assure that the usage of coerce in law can be distinguished from all interaction; it needs to have a very precise definition, as there is no precidence in law which addresses the issue of NO living being not having had been a victim of coersion, as defined by the law.

The use of coersion makes every child bearing citizen necessarily guilty of the crime until such a precident is established into law which recognizes the rights of the individuals yet to be born as having had been fundamentally violated; and to offer not an apology as such an act is impossible; but an effective means to express their right to not be here. It also allows them to know that people in 5000+ years of making law have not been so obtuse as to not recognize this obvious truth; and to that degree, aknowledge them as a being who exists.

This also in effect holds law itself accountable to a standard which can be measured. It holds all beings of governing ideation accountable to measurable statistics and experiential realities of the effect of their behaviors upon the society as a whole; and upon their interactions with everything from their nucleus family to the citizens upon which they brag in humbleness.

-Justhink

22

Consent can be virtualized; which is to say that there is a LAG between the consent and the recognition that it was fraud. This lag can last longer than the duration of a lifespan.

This is why informed consent is considered in law. A govenment could probably spray a given population and make them very ‘happy’ for a considerable duration, to run an effective necessity for the government where the cost of the spraying is far less than the profit of the effect. When the effect has been accomplished; and the cost benefit ratio dissolves, the spraying stops and things ‘change’ a bit for the population who used to be sprayed. Things aren’t as ‘easy’ and times seem to be a bit ‘harder’… And then they live full lives and die, without having ever had the situation of informed consent.

The only way to effectively battle the virtualization of consent is to place painless suicide machines numerously throughout every community. You are NOT entitled to have children for your own benefit; to make money for you, to entertain you, to validate you.

The virtualization of consent will recieve a huge wake-up call within a couple generations of instituting suicide machines into law. The law itself and a persons personal value as a human being is tested every moment. If you cannot raise a child who does not use a readily accessable machine for suicide 300 years away, then you never deserved the child. If you cannot hold friends who do not use a readily accessible suicide machine 300 yeards away at any given moment, then you do not deserve friends. If you cannot make law in a nation where children do not regularly enter painless suicide machines within a few hundreds yards of them; then you should not be making law.

People are being violated every day through the use of coersion; primarily their fear of suffering if they were to make a mistake in the act of suicide, or the endurance of time required with which they would suffer even more.

Suffering needs to have a measuring device in order for any maker of law or any braggart of an exceeding life to have a purpose other than being a moron. I would be quite surprized if anyone in the three branches of government handing law would be in their seats regardless of their wealth if this law had been mandated before their child was born. I don’t think these individuals could have raised a child to survive truth. As such, I don’t think they should be making laws; let alone hoarding wealth. They have no value, if they cannot address the most basic discipline of formulating law in accordance with reality.

-Justhink

23

““300 years away””

300 YARDS!

-Justhink

24

Maybe you should stay in bed under the covers until the next regime change.

25

“”"""""“Maybe you should stay in bed under the covers until the next regime change.”""""""""
Not directed at you spooje–

Oh you mean the day when people actually care about having something to physically measure their percieved value against?

People call those who commit suicide, cowards and insane.

Why don’t you stand up and see if you can raise someone to not commit suicide when a machine is just down the street. Then you can come back and tell with assuradness who is or is not insane.
I guarantee your logic will destroy that child.

Why don’t you show me the building where votes are hauled off to, and then you can come back and tell me who is or is not insane.

Why don’t you tell people what your doing, and then you can come back and tell me who is or is not insane.

Topics of suicide and transparency have nothing to do with ignoring what is occurring; and is not necessarily attached to some concept of fear. I don’t vote because I know it doesn’t matter; not because I’m afraid or despondant.

You bring in the transparency and then we’ll see who was lurking in the shadow of fear; depression, despondency, irratonality and absolute corruption; unabashed vampirism, and a smile to boot!

You just don’t want to see the evidence for it in the real world.
Because when push comes to shove; you’ll be left all alone - born a moron, dying a moron.

-Justhink

26

Well, here’s the NYS definition of coersion. I’m still trying to find out how it’s defined federally, but I don’t think it’s very different.

27

“”""""""""“Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or”""""""""""

Bingo! Back to my innitial point. Coersion is defined as the use of a fact, that has the potential of defaming someone… as a subcatagory of:

Compelling someone to engage in an illegal activity, or not engage in a legal activity.

This means, that if a law is so poorly written that only the corrupt individual can be defamed as a result of articulating that they should change the law; then YOU are by necessity guilty of coersion in the second degree; by even mentioning it.

Again, back to my point. Any attempt to effect US policy is by definition coersion; whether factual or not. The Patriot bill extends this to civillians as well. (i.e. ‘civillian’ law)

“”"""""""“Use or abuse his position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to his official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely;”""""""""

What if everybody who is a public servant is equally engaging in behavior which by necessity will defame each other and the other; through forceful action or absurd abstainence?

Who do you go for first? How do you do this without becoming guilty of coersion, and as such subject to extra-judicial measures as defined by US law?

Not issuing reciepts with election ballots is an action which defames all public servants; as it is an absurd ommission, the aknowledgement of, which can illigitemize all held public positions.

You publisize a true fact urging an official to change US policy; where the assertion of said fact opens them to ridicule whether they do or do not engage in the process.

Per the patriot act; such a declaration renders YOU the declaree, subject to extra-judicial treatment; outside of public record or due process.

“”""""""“Cause a strike, boycott or other collective labor group action injurious to some person’s business; except that such a threat shall not be deemed coercive when the act or omission compelled is for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act; or”""""""

Benefit is undefined. Does this mean that if everyone claims that this is to their benefit (i.e. a bunch of people killed their boss because they didn’t like he or she; or took all their money because they wanted it), that they are excluded from the coersion definition?

So a consensus of consent redeems you? I don’t think so, that means the law is contradicting itself.

a.) Consent can be virtualized
b.) If all the purpetrators agree that it is in their benefit they are excluded from the definition of coersion.

Basically, you can threaten someone with injury to their business if you or you and someone else agree that it is in your mutual benefit to do so.

Can ones ‘business’ be abstracted to their LIFE?

Talk about your loophole.

-Justhink

28

Do they sit around the fire and eat s’mores?

29

One day, when Fox News needs quotes for its story about the rampage in Oregon, we can say that he seemed like such a quiet sort.

30

I dunno…I don’t think quiet is the word I would use to describe this chap.

31

Hey Hinky? The {quote} {/quote} function is easy to use and takes lots less characters than the ‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ thing you keep doing.

As an added benefit it’s a hell of a lot less annoying.

Y’know, if this were directed at just about any other poster, I’d mention that it’d make their post clearer. However…

Fenris

32

With all due respect, Justhink, I don’t think I can continue this conversation with you. I’ve tried to make it clear that, in this case, “coerce” is not being used in a philosophical sense, but has a clear, narrowly defined, legal meaning. I’m sorry if I haven’t succeeded.

However, and I don’t mean to be rude, and hope you don’t take it that way, you don’t always write in the clearest manner. For example, I have no idea what you mean when you write:

That sentence honestly makes no sense to me, and honestly, most of your sentences are like that one, and I don’t have the energy to decipher them to try to find out what you’re saying. You might want to try simplifying your language.

33

Captain Amazing,

I am amazed at your ability to keep pounding your head against the wall that is Justhink.

I think that what Justhink means is that some people that might want to committ suicide don’t because if they fail in their attempt they a) have to keep on living and b) might not get another chance anytime soon due to incarceration.

Justhink has an unhealthy fixation on suicide IMO.

Now I must go seek professional counseling to help me understand how it is that I think I can interpret the verbal diarrhea that is Justhinks posts.

Beerfan

34

I still think your family is safe from John Ashcroft’s list.