Marc on The Edge AM w/ Daniel Ott – May 4, 2013 [interview review/critique]]
Current time: 11-23-2017, 04:15 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: eye2i2hear
Last Post: NonEntity
Replies: 69
Views: 24767

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Marc on The Edge AM w/ Daniel Ott – May 4, 2013 [interview review/critique]]
05-22-2013, 10:22 AM (This post was last modified: 05-24-2013 07:32 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #1
Marc on The Edge AM w/ Daniel Ott – May 4, 2013 [interview review/critique]]
First, granted, putting this under this thread takes a bit liberty with "article". (are there 'verbal' articles?) Wink

On to the more serious side... in listening to this interview, i found myself --noted, the arm-chair quarterback, if you will-- wishing a coupla times i could feed Marc some response ideas/terms (much like the host was being fed questions).

I thought i would post them here; perhaps that could be of aide (e.g. time saving/point succinctness/etc) to Marc in future such encounters, and/or be of overall interest in the process~

** In the first half hour, the topic came up of: where do 'Our' freedoms "come from", "God", 'Nature', "Humanity", our selves?
I agree with Mark's reply of Nature, with one caveat: factually, how do humans differ from (from being) 'Nature'? Or, how are humans factually distinct from Nature? While this may seem nit-picking, i offer that reflection upon it shows that it isn't. Grasping the significance, that there's little if any division or dichotomy, is empowering (or is it depowering viz defusing?) imho.
[personal aside: kudos to Mark for stating "God" isn't the source] Two Thumbs Up

** @around the 00:30:00 point, the topic of ALL CAPS reared it's ugly persistent head, yet again. The key word i would have liked to slip to Marc was: tradition. And technology --or the lack thereof in the origins, shaping said tradition.
The ALL CAPS format --catch that: format-- is simply now a cultural tradition. Same as the black robes, swearing on a "Bible", rising when the "Judge" enters/leaves, Attorneys wearing suits/ties, standing where they do, etc.
The best evidence in fact --contrasted with conspiracy conjecture/Legal weaving/theorizing/hypothesizing-- is that in the days of typewriters, clerks were extremely limited in how they could distinguish things e.g. headings, titles. A typewriter totally restricts and determines font and text options, including size. For example, there was no Bold "Bold" option. Ditto there was no color option (or very restricted in the latter days of typewriter bi-colored ribbons). Al that, then coupled with: ALL CAPS being more easily legible (it's larger overall size, along side considering the lighting technology of the early days etc), made it easier when searching for specific Cases from amongst the plethora of stacks on the desk/filing/file cabinet folders.
[anecdotal first hand testimony: i have a daughter who worked in Municipal Gov't awhile back, who whenever sending me email when at work, did so in all caps; when i asked here why, her simple reply was: SORRY, DAD, WE TYPE EVERYTHING IN ALL CAPS HERE SO I FORGET TO TURN CAPS LOCK OFF. tip: tradition viz we've always done it this way? --or-- of course [sic], EVERYTHING they type is a legal fiction PERSON... (?)]

* But in summary, the key response answer to what's up with all caps: Tradition (or TRADITION) Eyebrow Raise
[whether the shrewd Attorneys later saw it (leaked it?) as an opportunity to side track Patriots/Citizen-Subjects, like a hunter lures his prey, and the fisherman lures his catch, well, that's a whole nuther rabbit trail; ditto whether the hypothesis that the NAME in all caps is magical to some/all of Them]

** @round the 00:36:00min point: kudos to Marc, when the host said the gumbits challenged about States being nothing but DBAs reveal they are in a state of confusion, he added they are in a state of deflection. Two Thumbs Up (granting, said deflection may include deflecting away from their confusion/cognitive dissonance or intoxication/delusion)

** @round the 00:58:00min point: the subject of "home schooling" came up. While i generally agree with Marc's response, here's to folks considering unschooling [facebook] or nonSchooling (not 2b confused with NonEschooling *shiver* dog forbid!) --and Marc suggesting/mentioning that option/route!

** @round the 01:00:00hr point: wow. What an insightful, provocative, challenging question; particularly for me in the vein of Christians/Muslim's adopting children, thus the element of indoctrination, coercion, etc. [tho Marc only got into considering the situation of "gay" parents and not Religious(s)]

** @round the 01:02:00 point: kudos again to Marc for openness (and logically consistent reasoning) about "marriage" ("union") being a voluntary agreement between two (or more) consenting individuals.

** @round the 01:28:00 point, the issue of "Abortion" came up; where it seems interesting to me that Marc responded using the expression "belief" (and "sacred"); ok, so how does that differ from belief in "rights", "The Constitution", etc? Not to be coming from a challenge of the aspect of enforcement, per se, other than to ask, why is it belief on this topic rather than going for the facts and evidence? Marc said, "You know you're dealing with tyrant when they try to restrict your choices".
Isn't the issue with "pro choice", considering the innocent's choice --but yet who has the authority to define such regarding a woman's zygote/fetus/baby/"human" "life"? Aren't the terms chosen indicative of judgement? Belief? Emotion? Based upon what evidence in fact? [see Marc's parallel with "war" vs "murder" towards the end of the interview]
The host touched on the crucial issue: is there aggression against a zygote? a fetus? etc. Is the tyranny in the word choice?

And thus the question seldom addressed: apart from the apparatus of The State/Government(s), what will YOU (personally) do to one who exercises their choice ("pro"/"free"/"against")?
And what will YOU do to the one (or more) who acts upon their belief against the one who exercised said choice? (including choosing the word for said action, of "defense"?)
Who decides who's the "aggressor" or the "initiator of violence"? Where's the Authority? [genuinely, sincerely asked; eyi dunno/i'm unsure]

General consideration:

** Remind listeners regularly that getting to "no State" aka voluntary society requires a wide spread shift of thinking, a paradigm shift, from where most folks are now.
[i'd recommend including this being done more on the No State Project Broadcast]

Kudos to Mr Ott, for, into the hour point of the show, saying (probably out of history/habit) "free Citizens", then checking that, and saying "free people"! (noting in a late comment that he was "reformulating my speaking to relate to you"; paradigm shift on the fly?!)

Two Thumbs Up Kudos to Marc, for yet again, another fine job. Particularly from what appeared to me to be a Constitutionalist/Patriotic/Republican-Conservative/Religious/Politically-inclined broadcast (judging from the listener questions) for persisting in shifting the focus back to the core issues of no evidence, the hypocrisy, and the initiation of violence.

FWIW/FYC/MMV~
respectfully,
[Image: doghoundbanjoplaynrockin3d.gif]
--NonBrEtFarvE2i (the artist formerly known as NonTheQuarterbackJohnnyUnitas, for the old farts amongst us)


[Image: crossing.gif]
[side-track: ah, the ole term/label/name-calling (infectious) 'psychopath' --and Marc briefly defining (?) it; stating that the condition/issue is nurture based circa childhood abuse; interesting. Evidence? Controversial? Regrettable that the aspect of responsibility (parental)/condition permeability (rehability) didn't come up --tho at around the @01:24:00 point he touched on his addressing of "them"
Marc also remarked: "Let them go form their own little community and eat themselves" --which begs the question of who has the Authority to determine said "community" (which is but the yet to be examined challenge about land as "property"? --see the infamous Property Thread(s)); will there next be the "No Community Project"?!? "No Property=Land Project"?!? --speaking of yet to come paradigm shifts...]

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-23-2013, 02:53 PM (This post was last modified: 05-23-2013 08:59 PM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #2
RE: Marc on The Edge AM with Daniel Ott – May 4, 2013 [interview]
(05-23-2013 09:34 AM)Whip Wrote:  Are you saying only Christians/Muslim's indoctrinate, coerce children?

How silly.
What, you just looking for a e-verbal spar excuse? Jabbing

What part of "in the vein of" didn't you read?
(i guess it's that zygotes don't even have veins, so you could only focus from that miss-take)
Too ready to be "insulted" to even see it (as a convo-qualifier of sorts)?

In hindcite --you did catch the length of the post?-- i typically/habitually would have included Jewdayism with Islamania and Christinsanity; basically going for the Holy Triumphrant of Popularity, West'ern-style. [or did the radio host momentarily influence me in only having mentioned the 2...?]

Quote:Are you saying Judaics/Hindus/atheists/agnostics/others do not indoctrinate or coerce, (harsh word), children?
Silly u #2.
What, i've got to list every possible conceptualized grouping? All 3,000+ "christian"/"bible" denominations even? (isn't my doing that like you only picking a coupla of my excellent points to be "insult"ed by?)

First off, considering how few aStateists there are, isn't it pretty highly probable that indeed, many if not most "atheists" indoctrinate the religion of Stateism? Duh!

Only out of respect would i not say you knew damn clear what i was saying. It's just "Righteous Indignation" You're just "insulted"? Good on you.

Quote:If your intent is to insult certain religions out of personal dislike for those religions please say so instead of attempting to "indoctrinate" via omission.

If you're insulted, then yeah, that was my intent! Yeah, that's the ticket!
(again, i had "provoke" more in mind; mission accomplished?)

And might i ask: does Marc also have a mere "personal dislike" of the religion of Stateism?
[and, please, don't be tempted to play the "violence" card as a trump, just because enlightenment has currently forced the likes of Inquisitions, Witchhunts, and Crusades to be criminal/offenses (rather than "Righteous Judgments" ad nausum) aka Christinsanity is just currently the lesser of two evils in the Islam tango-bravo]

Regardless, trust me, it's way more than a "personal dislike" for me.
As Marc is with Bureaucrats, i add-in all religious b.s., and have to work to keep my Irish in check. [and seeing as how it's you i'm responding to, "no", i don't mean "Irish" only or literally] Eyebrow Raise

My word choice, rather than your "insult", would be instead, provoke/challenge/make fun of, with a pinch of sarcasm and Holy Water eye of newt sword of the Spirit ridicule --yeah. (levity, ridicule and sarcasm influenced me towards gaining eyes to see and ears to hear aka opening my eyes finally to my indoctrination in the superstition of "Revelation" religion/superstition/hearsay --and yeah, beginning as a child so let's not leave out coercion -and fear mongering)
[and in the remote possibility "you"'re there in or as The Star Dust somewhere, hat tip to ya Carlin!]

Quote:Anytime a person takes out a license to get married they are including three parties into the marriage: The groom, the bride and the "government". Further, by doing so, they are actually making "government" "head of household", as you cannot dissolve a marriage without governments consent. "Government" also gains ownership/parent-ship over all children produced in the marriage and all other affairs concerning the marriage.

Any time a license is involved it is good for "government", bad for you.

Agreeable. (and appreciative of your usage/inclusion of quote marks)
With the caveat that it doesn't do or make any thing; rather, such (further) encourages a state of mind, aka religious beliefs, wherein that mind state holds that you can initiate aggression/do violence (and label it "defense").

Quote:A zygote is a single cell. Modern science has not yet been able to detect a single cell in a womans womb by conventional pregnancy tests. Therefore, abortion would not even be considered, let alone performed, because of a "zygote". Put plainly: You might want to rethink the use of that word in discussions concerning abortion. Does not reflect well upon you.

Point and definition duly noted (reflection we'll get to momentarily).
Is it acceptable to you, as to "reflect well upon" me [sic], that i could take liberty via that shortcut, rather than type out "life begins at the moment of conception" (as classic topic verbiage)?
Actually, that question is sarcastic. i suspect you know me quite well enough by now to know, i generally don't give a flip what you think of me, per reflection or otherwise. You wear your religious inclinations ("revelatory" and "legal" claim forms) clear enough, that i genuinely wish you'd just stay over on that wwWhip.com website you so proudly herald. Reflect on that, how'bout it?

Popcorn

--NonE(mbryo)2i (the artist formerly known as NonzygotE2i, prior to meyetosis)

edit: corrected the word to "levity" from "brevity

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-23-2013, 08:30 PM
Post: #3
RE: Marc on The Edge AM with Daniel Ott – May 4, 2013 [interview]
(05-23-2013 09:34 AM)Whip Wrote:  Anytime a person takes out a license to get married they are including three parties into the marriage: The groom, the bride and the "government".

what evidence do You have to support this ..?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-23-2013, 09:10 PM
Post: #4
RE: Marc on The Edge AM with Daniel Ott – May 4, 2013 [interview]
(05-23-2013 08:30 PM)Bruce Sloane Wrote:  
(05-23-2013 09:34 AM)Whip Wrote:  Anytime a person takes out a license to get married they are including three parties into the marriage: The groom, the bride and the "government".

what evidence do You have to support this ..?

Uh, er... the license?!

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-24-2013, 04:27 AM
Post: #5
RE: Marc on The Edge AM with Daniel Ott – May 4, 2013 [interview]
Poke Tantrum Jabbing

Popcorn
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-24-2013, 05:02 AM
Post: #6
RE: Marc on The Edge AM with Daniel Ott – May 4, 2013 [interview]
Thumbs Up
(05-24-2013 04:27 AM)Andy Wrote:  
Poke Tantrum Jabbing

Popcorn
Two Thumbs Up
don't forge this one: Crying Fit

Calvin Dance are we havin' fun yet?

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-24-2013, 05:08 AM
Post: #7
RE: Marc on The Edge AM with Daniel Ott – May 4, 2013 [interview]
(05-24-2013 04:27 AM)Andy Wrote:  
Poke Tantrum Jabbing

Popcorn

Ditto
Dog Pile

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-24-2013, 06:48 AM (This post was last modified: 05-24-2013 07:06 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #8
RE: Marc on The Edge AM with Daniel Ott – May 4, 2013 [interview]
(05-23-2013 09:39 PM)Whip Wrote:  
Quote: i typically/habitually would have included Jewdayism with Islamania and Christinsanity;
More simply, and understandably, you could have just said "religion(s)". But I suspect that wouldn't have filled your agenda.

You're welcome to (as i've little evidence that much in the way of logical thinking is gonna sway) that opinion. But in a word, "no", i couldn't have. Your very replies offered in evidence.
You're equally welcome to your suspicions. Inaccurate, but hey, that doesn't appear to be a consideration you make much (ya know, like you could find out by just succinctly, sincerely asking --and being a light shining in the darkenss/role model?).

Are you possibly hung up on this hidden agenda bit because you're so familiar with it? You know, staring such in the face every time you look in a mirror? And because you value it, thus assume everyone else would as well?
Just sayin'~ (you know, asking)

I expressed my agenda already. Let me know if you need further clarification?

Quote:
Quote:First off, considering how few aStateists there are, isn't it pretty highly probable that indeed, many if not most "atheists" indoctrinate the religion of Stateism? Duh!
About the only thing I ever see "atheists" do is insult Christians, (and some times Muslims), and smoke weed.Most of the ones I have dealt with are pot heads or, to some degree, delusional. (Might explain your writing style). Also a large percentage seem to have been raised either Catholic or Jewish.

Aligning with much of what you express in your other threads i've bothered to read (and generally found to be a waste of time/major distraction/barking up the wrong proverbial tree/etc), once again you dodge points to stick to your agenda --so there, we all have one.

Point left unaddressed in order to get to your agenda instead: that i answered your question, yes, "atheists" can and do indoctrinate children --in the RELIGION of Stateism.
Regrettable, but not surprising to me, that you don't have ears to see...

As to your perspective on "atheists", man, it's a tiny world you choose to live in if that's accurate (note the hugely significant, qualifying "if"). Not really much of a surprise in that regard, going on what i've 'seen' of you 'round here. [not to even get into clarifying what you mean when you say "pot heads" in the same sentence with "smoke pot" etc? Self-righteous? and for the record (aka others reading) (?), gosh, come to think of it, i haven't had a doobie in what...?... dang, what, some 25+/- years now? 'er it is "Illegal" aka you can get killed over that stuff you know? just as other than now and again some of my dad's homemade wine (his hobby) i haven't had 'alcohol', much less been inebriated, in about that same span of time (see as the reason, mostly being broke and can't justify the expense)]

That and to the degree that it is accurate, it's a plus! Sounds like the word is getting out about rejecting the nonsense bias label "atheist"!

And taking instead the default, normal aka non-religious, unindoctrinated tact. Calling someone an "atheist" is like calling someone an "anazist". The thing one is against was a fiction per a state of mind in the first place (e.g. on a lighter note, an "asantaist") But name-calling (which calling someone an "atheisist" is --even tho many (Sam Harris not being one; attaboy Sam, you weed smoking delusional pot head!), sadly enuff, haven't examined the point and gladly accept it, thus use it themselves; but we're getting there too, like with "there is no State either!". Here's to one day having all the good folk hearing the label "atheist" and "Citizen" like they do "anazi", "amaster", "arapist", "asantaist", "aunicornist" etc aka silly name-calling by the still superstitious/Authoritarian (scared control freaks).

Quote:
Quote:If you're insulted, then yeah, that was my intent! Yeah, that's the ticket!
(again, i had "provoke" more in mind; mission accomplished?)
If your intent was to insult or "provoke" anger in myself - you failed. Miserably.

Ok, at least this time you asked --sorta. Cool

Once again, you're welcome to your opinion (i just wish you'd keep 'em to yourself or take 'em elsewhere. (hint: ww.Whip.com)
I actually feel quite good about my (actual) agenda --as clarified: to provoke.

(for the sake of others who might be still reading, that first bit, about insulting being my intent, was sarcasm; i hope the inclusion of the ever classic Jon Lovett SNL character line tipped that off)

Quote:You weren't even capable of eliciting sympathy from me.

Kewel. i don't want the likes of your sympathy (or anything else, but your attention).
Haven't i clearly told you what i most want of 'you' (who you believe you are presently)? (hint: wwW.hip.con?!)

Quote:Every one of your posts I force myself to suffer
Now there's something i can glean at least something positive from this particular exchange and enjoy thinking about! You suffering. (but of course Dodgy it's for "religious persecution" and it's not "you", it's "Christ in you"... Tounge am i right? right-right-right?)

Butt seriously, dude, stop forcing yourself. (hint: ww.Whip.con)

Quote:reading in the hopes there might actually be a gem of enlightenment to be found....there never is. Your double entendres, your disrespect for other peoples beliefs, your constant and never ending childish insults.....

Ah and like with "atheist", let the name-calling roll on.
Accepting that you could be believing you're writing this for others "benefit" (?) in reading aside, i've already plainly told you, but i will again: i don't give a flip what 'you' think of me. (like i've already told 'you' where to go! (hint: ww.Whip.con))

Quote:Man, you are one fucked up dude.

Coming from you, mahn, why a big ole thank you is in order! So: Thank you! (ok, it's not that big)
Nice (reverse) compliment.
Now stop, you're making me Blush

Quote:Hate to break it to you but that is the way you present yourself and I perceive you.

Me suspects that's not where the hate is at all ("breaking it to me"). Butt considering you prompts to mind the saying: assholes --everybody's got one. ditto opinions (as the sayin' goes).

Let's review the general point one more time: i don't care what you think of me or the way i present myself as you see it/take. (and while i'm at it, include those couple who think like you) (hint: they're like also on ww.Whip.con)

Quote:
Quote:You wear your religious inclinations ("revelatory" and "legal" claim forms) clear enough, that i genuinely wish you'd just stay over on that wwWhip.com website you so proudly herald. Reflect on that, how'bout it?
Show me one post in which I mentioned my religion or that I am even religious?

First, like i'm gonna take your baited hook, yeah right. Sorry just not gonna plow thru all your posts. Actually not even gonna take my time to scroll back up and check how i phrased it. Rather, let me just ask you (and we can get it on "the house" record):
do you, or do you not, profess the belief that you are a "Christian" aka "a believer and follower of Jesus The Christ" and in "The Holy Bible"?

Quote:This is Marc's house. Not mine. I am here to obtain knowledge in dealing with crooks in courthouses. Not discuss religious issues.

Passive aggressive much?

Of course this is Marc's forum/website. Duh.
Stefban metaphor laid aside as being mostly superfluous warm and fuzzy seeking.
(and if this were Marc's house?!? why, he and Gena (sp?) both would have long thrown the likes of me out on my arse --with NonEntity right behind me! --ok, by "would", i mean that's the high probability i assign to the likelihood...) [and ok, Marc, being a Propertarianist [sic], could "own" more than one house; please accept my literary license taken? rumor has it he has his own dog house, for sure!?]

And sorry, but if and when you discuss "dealing with crooks in courthouses", you are discussing religious issues i.e. other's religious beliefs.
To channel Forest Gump: Religion is as religion does.
(do a sitesearch with the key word "religion"?)

Quote:I am only doing so in this thread because it is your thread and it is on topic since you put it in your first post.

Wow, ok, so i guess i'm supposed to have gotten something from that?
ok, i'll leave it as conversation chatter and carry on... (tho, i don't consider it "my" thread; it's my original post of course; or if you mean it's a thread i started, ok --but with a "so?")

Quote: Why are you here?

Because i find value here.
And a big part of that value is that others find value here2. And share.
And a part of that value is that the site is procative i.e. it challenges my thinking/reasoning.
Howzat?

Quote:How many people have you run off? I am betting more than a few.

You'll make (are) a good typical Judge then! Enjoy your black robe!

But to play along with you, you first? How many people have you run off?
Have any "run off"?
And since you're all too ready to judge, share with us, oh mighty one, just how it is that YOU determine what "run off" even means?
According to your Rulez
By your Authority? Queen
Presume much?

Marc's 'on the record' goal with the forum:
[Image: MarcStevens.net%20583x100.png]
To bring about a voluntary society.
How crucial to that is clear, logically consistent reasoning, fact based evidence?
(nothing rhetorical or sarcastic intended in that question)

That's chiefly what i'm here for; totally what i'm here for if it includes having some fun along the way, a laff or 2, a jib or 2 (and fun including poking a few hornet's nests aka religious minds, of both the Church & the State varieties) [hint: see this thread!]

Quote:And FYI: It's not wwWhip.com, it's http://lawandjustice.freeforums.net/index.cgi and that is my house.

Oh, now that's classic right there. Clever boy! Move that agenda!
(too bad i didn't find enough value to what you'd come up with as a website the first time around to actually even give the actual url; as a point of emphasis, i did it a coupla times in this reply tho; you know, just for fun)

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-24-2013, 07:00 AM
Post: #9
RE: Marc on The Edge AM with Daniel Ott – May 4, 2013 [interview]
(05-24-2013 06:48 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  {stuff}

(02-24-2012 08:18 AM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  No matter how many times I've said/written it, it's just ignored. Here it is again: It's not always a good idea to start a conversation with:

Dude you're retarded

Poke

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-24-2013, 07:14 AM (This post was last modified: 05-24-2013 07:17 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #10
RE: Marc on The Edge AM with Daniel Ott – May 4, 2013 [interview]
(05-24-2013 07:00 AM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  
(05-24-2013 06:48 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  {stuff}
(02-24-2012 08:18 AM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  No matter how many times I've said/written it, it's just ignored. Here it is again: It's not always a good idea to start a conversation with:
Dude you're retarded
Poke

[/emphasis]

Poke indeed~
(and who said this was a "conversation" --not to mention, assuming it is, asking, indeed, who "started" it? and how who has the Authority to "say"? ... )

Crying Fit Mommie, why didn't hAbbie "[snip]" Whip!?! Rulez
(he called me "one fucked up dude"!!) Tantrum [um, butt we're after facts here, so "nevermind"! --NonEmily2i]

Poke

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-24-2013, 07:25 AM
Post: #11
RE: Marc on The Edge AM with Daniel Ott – May 4, 2013 [interview]
(05-24-2013 07:14 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  
(05-24-2013 07:00 AM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  
(05-24-2013 06:48 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  {stuff}
(02-24-2012 08:18 AM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  No matter how many times I've said/written it, it's just ignored. Here it is again: It's not always a good idea to start a conversation with:
Dude you're retarded
Poke

[/emphasis]

Poke indeed~
(and who said this was a "conversation" --not to mention, assuming it is, asking, indeed, who "started" it? and how who has the Authority to "say"? ... )

Crying Fit Mommie, why didn't hAbbie "[snip]" Whip!?! Rulez
(he called me "one fucked up dude"!!) Tantrum [um, butt we're after facts here, so "nevermind"! --NonEmily2i]

Poke

Poke Fishing LOL Popcorn

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-24-2013, 08:30 AM (This post was last modified: 05-24-2013 08:30 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #12
RE: Marc on The Edge AM w/ Daniel Ott – May 4, 2013 [interview review/critique]]
(05-24-2013 07:25 AM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  Poke Fishing LOL Popcorn

ok, genuine sincere inquiry here: why did you "snip" me rather than/also quote+snip Whip?

And how does the progression of this thread differ from your's with RealSkinny? (was there any name-calling in that one?)

Meanwhile, i'll get to what i suspect might be what's being held/seen as the distinction, and hopefully address Whip's latest question as well in the process...

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-24-2013, 09:30 AM (This post was last modified: 05-24-2013 09:55 AM by Habenae Est Dominatus.)
Post: #13
RE: Marc on The Edge AM w/ Daniel Ott – May 4, 2013 [interview review/critique]]
(05-24-2013 08:23 AM)Whip Wrote:  Why can you not be civil and respect the beliefs of those you disagree with?




(05-21-2013 08:18 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  
(05-18-2013 04:18 PM)TheDude Wrote:  Nevertheless, I did say that I would try my best to be open and honest with you, so with respect to that I'll work with you on the condition that you remain respectful of my beliefs and my right to have them (and I fully intend to honor yours).

This is one that I always just LOVE!

I'm supposed to respect any cockamamie idea you happen to have? REALLY?

Well then, by that reasoning, shouldn't YOU be required to respect the idea that I have that there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of magical beings who are omnipotent, omniscient, wonderful, hateful, generous and miserly all at the same time?

I DO NOT respect your beliefs and it is insane to suggest that I should. Respect is based upon reason and or experience, it is not something that can be unconditionally applied to the entirety of human thought!

- NonE

(05-24-2013 08:30 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  
(05-24-2013 07:25 AM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  Poke Fishing LOL Popcorn

ok, genuine sincere inquiry here: why did you "snip" me rather than/also quote+snip Whip?

And how does the progression of this thread differ from your's with RealSkinny? (was there any name-calling in that one?)

Meanwhile, i'll get to what i suspect might be what's being held/seen as the distinction, and hopefully address Whip's latest question as well in the process...

I poked you. Poke
You took the bait. Fishing
It was at your expense that I am getting a chuckle out of your response. LOL
And I'm enjoying the entertainment. Popcorn

I would have had to quote whip before I could snip him. A do recall the two of you getting into flames in other interactions.

I find the exchange amusing... TO ARMS over contradictory positions as somebody has pointed out over words and failed communications.

You ask about my interaction with RealScarce, Well until he disappeared I attempted to not call him names.

As to the progression of the dialog, I think the dialog with his Dudeness should be more a role model on how to discuss the issue... Which reminds me, May be you and whip should continue this particular discussion on the board where The Dude and I are having ours.

And what's the big deal torpedoing my attempt to thread shred? You let NonE do it. Annoyed

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-24-2013, 11:07 AM (This post was last modified: 05-24-2013 11:10 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #14
RE: Marc on The Edge AM w/ Daniel Ott – May 4, 2013 [interview review/critique]]
(05-24-2013 08:23 AM)Whip Wrote:  @ eye2i2hear: Although you do display signs of arrested development disorder.... OK, fuck it - Dude you're retarded.

i can easily sense aka put my probability on how GOoD that makes you feel.

But dude, i've already told you: i don't give a Whip flip what you think about me. Calling me names isn't gonna change that.
What, next you're gonna really get on the bandwagon and call me having arrested development disorder a psychopath!!!?! (go ahead, again, i couldn't care less-- considering the source --Spirit-filled obviously/none the less; keep it up and it'll be as innocuous as the label "asshole" or "fuck" aka who knows what such means anymore? --aka just another fuckin' opinion).

Quote:What makes you tick? Seriously.

"tick"?
i like how Marc puts he (he, like NonEnity with writing, has quite a knack for succinctly honing words): i wish to be left alone. [recalling him also quoting Ernie Hancock: there are two kinds of people, those wanting to be left alone and those who won't leave 'em alone]
And "Christians" just won't do that (they're commanded not to even? call it "being a light") --in two distinct fashions; one they're more aware of, the other as Whip exemplifies, don't have a clue of (but i hope to address before we wrap this).

What makes me 'tick' is having a convo about bringing about a voluntary society; it seems when enough of us have hammered that out, there won't BE any "tickets" to have to be concerned with, hat tip to Marc on that insight yet again).
Included way down the list under such exploration and yammer-hammering, getting tickets kicked out/exposing the hypocrisy/blind siding the delusional hard enough to sober them up. Last and deff least, is exploring every minutia of Their superstitious coding, like it has any value (well, apart from entertainment, you know that like watching cobras on a nature program).
i do have some respect for upper tier exploration as it relates to damage control --as keeping resources in folks pockets and foiling the scam in the process; and like i said, there's ww.Whip.com for those wanting to swim around in said minutia, right?

Higher up the list is calling bullshit/superstition/insanity manifestation when i see someone still foggy about such lines. A voluntary society will take persistent sharp clear reasoning, which foggy isn't --myop.

Quote:Why can you not be civil and respect the beliefs of those you disagree with?

What part of it's more than mere "disagree" didn't you hear? Don't you have eyes to hear?
Again, does Marc merely "disagree" with Stateists with their religion of Statism; is that how you'd express it with him as well? [not to get into his calling 'em names2... nor why it's so crucial for religionists to parrot the mantra-dogma about "respecting all opinions"; getting to that Pandora's Box momentarily...]

And i guess you mean "civil" like the last 400+ centuries of Anglo-religious "civilization", eh white man (contrasted with white or otherwise woman/man)? And "christian"? And "muslim"? (we're getting to it hAbbie, i promise...) [note: don't let my momentary lapse into a rant distract here; check "my Irish" eye2]

Quote:Why are you always on the attack? The negative energy you and I are wasting in this thread could much easier have been used to produce something beneficial to the forum and to those who stop in just to see what Marc Stevens forum is all about.

One individuals "negative energy" is another's "charge". If i were a battery, i'd be fully charged. So indeed, there's a time and place for negative energy. When is an "attack" a "charge"? (who says?)
[classic demonstration of lack of e-Prime, both coming and going, duly, woefully noted]

And yet again, like with "run off" (as "running off" forum participants), you wish to carte blanc speak of "something beneficial". How is that decided? By what "Authority"? You as an authority?
You do grasp that such is just your opinion, right?
(which thank dog, per the format and current/present englightenment advantage, you aren't enforcing at the blade of a sword, or the pyres of "purging/Judgement", "Holy") [see hAbbie, we're getting there, step by step...]

Quote:I am going to bow out of this "conversation" as it is not in me to bring disgrace into another mans house.

Tounge <---(both for the ""s around conversation and the insistence of such being Marc's "house"; my probabilities regarding sincerity of typing such, aside; see hidden "agenda-ize" much?)

Quote:My apologies to all who have read my negative posts and to you also, eye2i2hear, for my insults aimed at you. Even the ones in this post.


i2 will leave this for the readers (what, "all" 3-4 of 'em? seeing as i've run 'em all off...)

Quote:In answer to your question, (since it seems so important to you)

Ok, thanks for that bit put in parentheses; i got a nice chuckle with that! Laffing being medicine that is the best and all.

Quote:Yes, I am a Christian. Some would call me a "jack-Christian" since I am a piss poor follower, but a Christian I am none-the-less.

[now, hAbbie, now!]

kewel. Now that we've got that "official" and on the record, we can at least know from whence our agendas (tend) to be derived from, aye? [one zinger i just can't resist: shouldn't you be a "paul-Christian"? see TheDuke for details... *snickers*]

Interestingly enough (cosmic consciousness, Andy?!), while preparing and eating my morning grub, i had the old (literally, old) AM radio on, and as my housemates tend to do, it was tuned to a local station that latter in the morning airs The Dennis Miller Show (some might recall the "cat" --one of his classic terms of endearment --via his stint on SNL? regardless), and one of the mornings topics: Islam. And "muslim". As it relates to the good ole USA, "Memorial Day", and such, of course.
Wherein Dennis, classic Statist (believer in Authority in the "form" of individuals calling themselves "The Government -Conservative") that he is, along in the convo (catch my "cat" speak?) spoke of "those in the radical, fundamentalist, Islam fringe, and not the (ok, nice) 'other's".

My option/"Authority" meter pegged. What i'd ask Mr. Miller is: who the hell/fuck/[your expletive of choice here] are you to be telling these individuals what 'God said' --aka what "God" (really) means?!?
[see JewDaysim, Christinsanity, and every "sect", "cult-ure", "denomination", ad infinum, ad nausum...]

Which hopefully connects, via my hope in an ability to convey it here, with ANY and EVERY religion, be it Church OR State (and mostly Church IS State, but that's a digression; let me slip in tho, that the word "church" when translated contextually consistent, is "Assembly"; see "The General Assembly", see "The Church Assembly of God", "God bless America" (damn any "against us")?! --to those with eyes to hear, of course [sic]/sick)

Of course [sic] what Mr Miller is eluding to is The Majority Rule belief/mantra. It's what "We" say it is and isn't.
Yet, in the "Christian" version, "is it not written", the "Majority" "will fall away" (into "heresy"/"false doctrine"/"error"?! [sic]
Say it with me: SAYS WHO?
(decides who? oh yeah, the same ones that decided which God and what men actually said what "God" said...)

Which gets us (?) nicely enough to "God's Word" aka "The Holy Book Biblios".
Which factually is? "Words written on 4 however many pieces of parchment/paper" it takes.
The words of man/men's opinions, who claim/say it is "God"'s "words".

Note hAbbie (as i put a high probability that you're already connecting the proverbial dots), all we're talking of here is: Authority.

Here of course, we can arrive back at the Holy TriUmphrant of JewDaysism, Islamani, and Christinsanity.
(and Marc & hAbbie, if you have a trouble with "Christinsanity" per the insanity, just think "psychopath" there tough guy; unless you ask me what i mean by insanity, can you know? suffice it here that even the institutionalized insane do many normal things; just as many "psychopaths" do...?)

They each start out with what's by Majority Rule labeled "The Pentateuch". aka, factually, as the first 5 "Books scribblings of some long dead men making all sorts of superstitious claims (CONstitution, meet Buybull) --selected by yet some other "Authority" from yet other such scribblins thereafter labeled frivolous "fakes".

But, as with all cons wishing to be successful (otherwise they're just the nonsense/superstition/bullshit they are), included as many 'truths' (empirical and psychological) as they could collect up/pass along.

Individuals heralding themselves as "Jews" ("The Jews") and others as "Muslims" say they stop with those 5 "books" --but of course, because of the inherent contradiction, obfuscation, vagueness, con-fusion, etc, "more" such writings "sacred" had (but no longer "officially") have to be written ("annotated").
Ditto the "Christian" version (labeled "Old" and "New"/"First" and "Last", "Only") [necessity of "InSpired"/"In-Spirited" "commentaries", less yet again, the next round of contradiction, obfuscation, vagueness, con-fusion, have the masses "exodus"ing like Aliens during a Border Raid]

A key claim here will typically always come up with the "Christians". That being that They're "peaceful" (thanks, George Orwell, for the reminder) --and they are because? Why, that's what "God" (really) "said"/"says"!
Says who? Circle gets the square.

Well, as I asked of Mr Miller (rhetorically): Who the hell/fuck died and left you in charge? [wait for it... wait...]
"CHRIST!" sez the "Christian" (""jack-Christians"" included). "GOD" is "THE AUTHORITY". And by Our Authority, we're telling you which "God" and what said "God" "said" --and thus, didn't "say".

"Wait, well, *cough* He died but he didn't leave us "in charge"; he's still Lord of Lords and King of [s[Presidents[/s] Kings *sputter*. He left "Government" in Charge!" (say the Romans 13 crowd --but yet another (minor/"miner") crowd poo-poohs; see ad infinum, "The Answer" that isn't)

Of course, we're back to THE question: says who? Who, factually, has "The Authority" to say such? Same as the typical "Politician"? "Citizen"?

My "dislike" disgust comes right here. THE problem is belief in Authority (again, hat tip to Mr Rose), coupled from there with the vacuum created inherently by such a belief-- to declare what "The Authority" is (on earth as it is in heaven [sic]).
Couple that with the unrequited, as unaddressed issue of fetal/infant propensity (i.e. parental transference rather than individual independence), and label such "Father God".
And couple that with "God said" and well, you've got THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY, unquestionable and to be blindly obeyed (We'll call such "Faith").
The trouble being: there is no such "said", in fact offered in evidence, and instead with both religions you've got the same thing: individuals believing such and being willing to enforce such (to whatever degree some majority equally says, at any given time, any given space --yet individuals by the plethora, scattered about at times in lesser, other times greater "news" notice, killing/murdering all becasuse it's ENDORSED by The Majority that "God" can "speak" to men aka THEM).

Let us tie in another CONnection here: "all men are Created equal" --which historians tell us The Fathers Authors meant, equal in authority. Whether They meant/"said" such, matters little here, factually; thus "Creator" aside, all the authority there is IS (resides within) each individual. The essence of voluntary society, equals when it comes to authority.

The rub comes when an authority claims a "higher" authority; claims there's "The Authority". And can there be any higher authority than: "God"? And "God said"?! To the minds that choose (for a plethora of reasons) to belief such in the first place?

Tie in the power of the most powerful superstition, belief in Authority --emphasis on "power", and what do we have?

Some authorities --aka some individuals-- telling other authorities --ditto, merely other individuals-- what "God" (is and) "said"!!

Could one possibly open a bigger can of worms/a wider barn door/a better Pandora's Box?!? [see History for a 1000 / Double Jeopardy as needed]

"There IS 'THE AUTHORITY' and it is 'GOD' and 'GOD SPEAKS' --just what I say 'HE' said, BY GOD!!!!"

Says who, again?
There's what makes me "tick", Whip.
There's the dots connecting that make this valuable to me, hAbbie.

In wrapping this, and considering the probable target audience (probability of it being "Christians"?), consider what one "God" (is said to have) said:
"Bring those who would not have me as King before me and slay them at my feet!" [red letter! no less!]

Literal or figurative? Says who? (given time and place? see present "Islam"?)

So, Whip, i thank dog for the "atheist", pot heads or otherwise, (enlightenment/scientists/logical thinkers/rationalists) who along with the inherent-ness of squabbling over such vague things splintering majorities (see the very nature of words), keep such at bay in the literal sense.
But They can't really say a thing about what "God" is telling others "God says/It says/means". All they can do is label them; "fundamentalists"... "radicals"... "terrorists"... "True believers!"... "those with eyes to hear"..."the elect" contrasted with "The Majority"?!?
ad nasusm, ad infinum.

Close the damn door already. Cut the head of Hydra at the root.
Ridicule, scoff, challenge, provoke, mock, make light of, tick off the superstitious intoxicated insane delusional when they don't keep such Opinions to themself.
Worked with me when i was thus intoxicated! (worked for many when they believed in Santa Claus and "testified/witnessed" to the older kids just as much... luvved ya George Carlin, etal)

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-24-2013, 11:41 AM
Post: #15
RE: Marc on The Edge AM w/ Daniel Ott – May 4, 2013 [interview review/critique]]
(05-24-2013 11:07 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  
(05-24-2013 08:23 AM)Whip Wrote:  Yes, I am a Christian. Some would call me a "jack-Christian" since I am a piss poor follower, but a Christian I am none-the-less.

[now, hAbbie, now!]

The question was, is, and will be: What evidence do you rely upon to prove God - Jesus - Holy Spirit exist?

If there is no proof that God exists, then there can be no proof that God gave any commands that MUST be obeyed. Therefore there is no proof that these rules, tenants, dogmas have come from God.

You got your cognitions about God and Jesus from somewhere.

I used to believe that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy were real. Toys magically appeared under the tree, eggs magically appeared in hidden nooks and crannies, and my teeth were magically replaced with coins. So at that time I believed in magic, and the observable evidence seemed to support that erroneous belief. At eight years of age, a childhood acquaintance met the federal rules of evidence number 602 and testified to me that he saw the presents in a closet and then saw them again under the tree.

Ever since then, I have found that magic is sleight of hand, distraction, misdirection, and does not exist.

(05-24-2013 11:07 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Note hAbbie (as i put a high probability that you're already connecting the proverbial dots), all we're talking of here is: Authority.

These dots?

101. You were not born my king, my superior, nor my sovereign, you were not born with a higher rank than I.

102. Therefore, you DO NOT have a right to command me by your mere birth.

103. If this is true for you, it is true for every other human being born on the planet.

104. If no one has a rank higher than mine, then no one has a right to command me.

105. Persons long dead were not born my king, my superior, nor my sovereign, they were not born with a higher rank than I.

106. Therefore, persons long dead DO NOT have a right to command me by their mere birth.

107. If persons long dead do not have the right to command me by their mere birth, then their commands scribbled on a piece of paper DO NOT have a right to command me after their death.

Methinks this really should be in the Hardcore Atheists Corner

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)