Discussion with a staunch critic, ICBMCatcher
Current time: 11-23-2017, 04:19 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: Andy
Last Post: Andy
Replies: 32
Views: 6020

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Discussion with a staunch critic, ICBMCatcher
02-22-2017, 10:35 AM
Post: #16
RE: Discussion with a staunch critic
Even if meant in good intentions, I'd appreciate it if NonEntity wouldn't derail this thread. Especially with his unfounded assertions.

--&e

What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte
Government public "education"/indoctrination is child abuse.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-22-2017, 10:55 AM
Post: #17
RE: Discussion with a staunch critic
(02-22-2017 10:35 AM)Andy Wrote:  Even if meant in good intentions, I'd appreciate it if NonEntity wouldn't derail this thread. Especially with his unfounded assertions.

--&e

I apologize. I have to take some responsibility also.

Purveyor of the 60 MPH post.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-22-2017, 11:05 AM
Post: #18
RE: Discussion with a staunch critic
(02-22-2017 10:55 AM)Freerangecanuck Wrote:  
(02-22-2017 10:35 AM)Andy Wrote:  Even if meant in good intentions, I'd appreciate it if NonEntity wouldn't derail this thread. Especially with his unfounded assertions.

--&e

I apologize. I have to take some responsibility also.

Thank you. Your well meant intentions are duly noted. I'd like to elaborate with just a bit more, then I'll drop it.

Marc welcomes critics to call into the NSP broadcast. So much that he wants to give them "first billing" -- first in line to call in. I start this thread with both discussions combined into one video and give examples of how to easily make time-specific links to the their discussion and what does NonEntity chime in with??? A different discussion where one man has a flaw in his otherwise rational thinking.

I saw no rational thought come from ICBMCatcher. Not even him saying "there can't be any evidence proving the prosecutor's claim the constitution and code apply." For, according to ICBMCatcher's irrational "logic" it's not because no evidence exists. Rather, because of his opinion on how the comply-or-die legal system works, there can't be evidence. That makes no sense to me. Then again, I'm not that well versed in the adventures in legal land comply-or-die "logic".

--&e

What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte
Government public "education"/indoctrination is child abuse.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-23-2017, 08:14 AM
Post: #19
RE: Discussion with a staunch critic
The 12 court rulings posted here (http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp2...nt-199644) on the article page say jurisdiction must be proven. That pretty much explains why ICBMCatcher is the only one saying there can’t be evidence proving jurisdiction, which he has said several times.

And explains why no one who has called in to the No State Project live broadcast has ever mentioned a judge or prosecutor said there can’t be evidence.

ICBMCather says there can’t be evidence with such conviction that it’s true, you can hear it in his voice. He’s damn certain there can’t be evidence. Don’t take my word for it, listen to ICBMCatcher say it with such certainty in his voice/demeanor, for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc9qZDJi....be&t=4899

--&e

What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte
Government public "education"/indoctrination is child abuse.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-23-2017, 10:47 AM (This post was last modified: 02-23-2017 10:52 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #20
RE: Discussion with a staunch critic
What's been fascinating to me, perhaps based more from the other present dynamic duo guy's remarks specifically (?), is that Their Argument calls what Marc is doing (merely) philosophical, implying that what They're doing isn't.? Just because it's (re)labeled "Legal".?

When Marc is merely the (only) one asking for a.) the empirical evidence, as z.) what They themselves have written is required in the first (and last) place.

(re)liegeion is as religion does?
(make It say/mean what you want/need It to say--with conviction!)

Legal is Legal because my choice of men's writings say it's Legal...

_________________________
speaking of philosophy:
Quote:[Philosophical problems] are, of course, not empirical problems; but they are solved through an insight into the workings of our language, and that in such a way that these workings are recognized -- despite an urge to misunderstand them. The problems are solved, not through the contribution of new knowledge, rather through the arrangement of things long familiar. Philosophy is a struggle against the bewitchment of our understanding by the resources of our language.
[Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Philosophical Investigations," 1953]
"Government" aka "Legal" (aka a philosophy) = an empirical problem aka the gun in the room/under the proverbial table!

("religion", of the same origin root as "allegiance" ... "Pledge" thereof, bewitching coincidence?)

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
02-23-2017, 02:00 PM
Post: #21
RE: Discussion with a staunch critic
Speaking of philosophy (and whether one wielding it actually understands what they're saying):

Quote:Philosophical inquiry into morals serves the important function of sorting out and making explicit one's existing convictions in order to make them available for refinement. In Nussbaum's reading of Socrates there are a few convictions that motivated him (Nussbaum 2002, 508). First, he believed that most people already have reasonable ethical competence. But at the same time their views are usually “an ill-sorted mass of material derived from experience and tradition” that can contain inconsistencies and tensions that most people have never sorted out (Nussbaum 2002, 508). There is thus progress in ethics at least in the sense that through an analysis—or cross-examination—that reveals the inconsistencies, fallacious inferences, unwarranted generalizations, and false premises one has had as part of one's moral outlook, one can start sorting it out and make it more internally coherent. This has been one of the primary functions moral philosophy has had ever since Socrates. One contemporary example is Alasdair MacIntyre's work (especially After Virtue [1984]), which has tried to analyze the contemporary state of moral discourse by showing its historical roots and how it carries within it fragments from earlier traditions that do not fit into our modern worldview anymore.

Also, moral concepts and principles serve an especially important function in moral discussions and arguments. Without these concepts, a moral dispute can't move beyond the “I am right, you are wrong” phase. The vocabulary around moral issues makes it possible to articulate the reasons and principles behind one's own moral convictions, to search for common ground, to criticize each other's moral outlooks, and in general to enter into a genuine dialogue about the issue, instead of having a polarized yes-or-no battle. The tools that moral philosophy provides can thus be used to make it possible to understand each other in moral matters, and to discuss these topics in a fruitful way. ... The conceptualizations [these dialogs] generate should be seen as tools that can serve people better or worse in their ethical quest. Moral theories should thus be viewed as concentrated moral wisdom which is made available to people and which they can utilize in their lives to identify and deal with moral challenges.
...
In practice, there seem to be two ways in which moral disagreements are resolved. First is brute force. In some moral disputes I am in a position in which I can force the other party to comply with my standards whether that other party agrees with me or not. The state with its monopoly on the legitimate use of violence can force its citizens to comply with certain laws even when the personal moral code of these citizens would disagree with the law. The second way to resolve a moral disagreement is to find some common ground, some standards that the other believes in, and start building from there a case for one's own position.

In the end, it might be beneficial that pragmatism annihilates the possibility of believing that I am absolutely right and the other party is absolutely wrong. As Margolis notes: “The most monstrous crimes the race has ever (been judged to have) perpetrated are the work of the partisans of ‘right principles’ and privileged 'revelation'” (1996, 213). Instead of dismissing the other's perspective as wrong, one must try to understand it in order to find common ground and shared principles that might help in progressing the dialogue around the problem. If one really wants to change the opinion of the other party, instead of invoking some objective standards one should invoke some standards that the other already believes in. This means that one has to listen to the other person, try to see the world from his or her point of view. Only through understanding the other's perspective one can have a chance to find a way to change it—or to change one's own opinion, if this learning process should lead to that. One can aim to clarify the other's points of view, unveil their hidden assumptions and values, or challenge their arguments, but one must do this by drawing on principles and values that the other is already committed to if one wants to have a chance to have a real impact on the other's way of seeing the world, or actually to resolve the disagreement. I believe that this kind of approach, rather than a claim for a more objective position, has a much better chance of actually building common understanding around the moral issue at hand.
...
Martha Nussbaum concludes that philosophizing about morals is nothing categorically different from what ordinary people do, but that there “nonetheless is a genuine sphere of expertise,” and therefore moral philosophers—who by education should be experts in moral topics—can provide an important public service (2002, 513). Understanding morality as a social technology leads to a vision of moral philosophers as ethical engineers who are experts in constructing sound moral systems for the use of people. Indeed, one could even argue that this is their duty. Understood as ethical engineers, moral philosophers have as their task to use their expertise in ethical matters to clarify and evaluate existing solutions, and to propose novel solutions that enhance people's capabilities to live together and to lead good and ethically sound lives.

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
02-23-2017, 04:23 PM
Post: #22
RE: Discussion with a staunch critic
ICBMcatcher is irrational. From the 2nd call, my best recollection:

Marc: Is a legal claim against someone philosophical?

ICBM: No.

Marc: Is asking for proof of that a legal claim philosophical?

ICBM: No.

Marc: Then why is it philosophical when I ask for proof?

ICBM: Because anarchy is baloney.

He admits a legal claim is not philosophical, admits asking for proof of the claim is not philosophical, then he contradicts himself in order to continue falsely accusing me.

Saying my question asking for proof that a written instrument applies is philosophical is just a dishonest way to avoid his irrational ideas/conclusions and contradictions. But, he's still not satisfied, now he's threatening to ramp up his attack against me if I don't immediately start working on a contingency basis.



If government services were valuable and the market wanted them, they wouldn't be provided on a compulsory basis.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-24-2017, 01:50 AM
Post: #23
RE: Discussion with a staunch critic
(02-23-2017 04:49 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  Did you get permission from Andy to speak? Headshake Thumbs Down

No he didn't. Neither did you. Nor did anyone else who has posted to this thread. fwiw, Marc was on topic of this thread.

Is ICBMCatcher your new best bud? Did you learn that from him? I shouldn't have to be the one to tell you this, but there was interest in your post so why don't you put it in a separate thread? I watched the video even before you posted it here.

Hat tip to Freerangecanuck. [Image: 5.gif]

--&e

(02-23-2017 04:23 PM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  ICBMcatcher is irrational. From the 2nd call, my best recollection:

Marc: Is a legal claim against someone philosophical?

ICBM: No.

Marc: Is asking for proof of that a legal claim philosophical?

ICBM: No.

Marc: Then why is it philosophical when I ask for proof?

ICBM: Because anarchy is baloney.

He admits a legal claim is not philosophical, admits asking for proof of the claim is not philosophical, then he contradicts himself in order to continue falsely accusing me.

Saying my question asking for proof that a written instrument applies is philosophical is just a dishonest way to avoid his irrational ideas/conclusions and contradictions. But, he's still not satisfied, now he's threatening to ramp up his attack against me if I don't immediately start working on a contingency basis.



Track record and how many people agree this is a good idea? "This is something. Maybe I should check into this. Maybe I should agree with this... Something must be going on here because look at all the other people who agree. " End there.

https://youtu.be/tc9qZDJialI?t=10121

What I see is 7 billion people who want all their interactions with other people to be voluntary. That is, each person wants the choice to accept or decline to associate with any other individual. That's a heck of a lot of people in agreement. That's an awful lot of baloney, aye?

--&e

What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte
Government public "education"/indoctrination is child abuse.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-24-2017, 09:50 AM
Post: #24
RE: Discussion with a staunch critic
&E,
Let me know if you'd prefer me remove my posts, as being off topic. i can easily enough relocate them.

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
02-24-2017, 11:54 AM
Post: #25
RE: Discussion with a staunch critic
(02-24-2017 09:50 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  &E,
Let me know if you'd prefer me remove my posts, as being off topic. i can easily enough relocate them.

You may want to post a duplicate of your second post to a new thread because my commentary may have deterred some who would like to comment on it. Your first post is valuable on-topic insight and I assume somewhat lead to you posting the second so you may want to duplicate that with the second.

I do appreciate you asking. [Image: 5.gif]

--&e

What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte
Government public "education"/indoctrination is child abuse.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-24-2017, 01:22 PM (This post was last modified: 02-24-2017 01:27 PM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #26
RE: Discussion with a staunch critic
[Image: crossing.gif]
(02-24-2017 11:54 AM)Andy Wrote:  You may want to post a duplicate of your second post to a new thread because my commentary may have deterred some who would like to comment on it.

i appreciate the consideration; and indeed, tho not replicating the text specifically, i started a thread for the essay yesterday as well, here: Moral Philosophers as Ethical Engineers: Limits of Moral Philosophy and a Pragmatist Alternative.

Quote:Your first post is valuable on-topic insight and I assume somewhat lead to you posting the second so you may want to duplicate that with the second.

Good to hear; sometimes there's a lingering question regarding dot connecting.
(fwiw, i may now copy/paste this thread's specific excerpt in another post under that thread, seeing as how i've gotten this feedback on it)

Quote:I do appreciate you asking.

☑ ditto appreciation of your consideration.

Following through on Wittgenstein's observation circa bewitchment potential, would you say that describes the usage of the term philosophy by ICBM & Robin his sidekick (on the main page) i.e. evidence of bewitchment, to evidence of a desire to bewitch?
[Image: smiley_emoticons_hexe2.gif]
And regardless, how is Governmentalism/Statetheism not but a philosophy (*cough*hack*spit* according to ICBMhypocritactor?) --subsequently acted upon by those supporting such? The philosophical part being/including "The Majority as I and those who agree with me determine/define it, makes Might that makes Right as subsequently We determine/define It"? (the empirical part being, again, the literal gun under the proverbial table)


___________
* speaking of bewitching, what of Voltaire's Admonition applicability to this term philosophy? wherewith, when similarly with anarchy ("none"+"higher/above/over another"), there's "philo" + "sophy" = "the brotherly-love of knowledge"? where the crucial, as all there is, is knowledge (progressively) gained via scientific methodology (the common universals supported by the common senses + critical thinking) -or- conjecture-relabled-"knowledge" ?

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
02-24-2017, 04:40 PM
Post: #27
RE: Discussion with a staunch critic
Even ICBMcatcher admitted "might makes right" is morally reprehensible. Yet, despite the fact all I really do is ask questions to bring out the contradiction with "might makes right" and fairness/due process, he says I am a scammer and it's all baloney.

The guy's OWN morals are consistent with anarchy, but he argues in favor of "might makes right."
[Image: ce5a11df5e5abed9c03db6a3f47108fd.jpg]

If government services were valuable and the market wanted them, they wouldn't be provided on a compulsory basis.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-24-2017, 05:17 AM
Post: #28
RE: Discussion with a staunch critic
A "gift" that keeps on giving, ICBMCatcher, a one-stop shop for all your irrationality needs.

Jail is no Substitute for Evidence

Thumbs Up




--&e

What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte
Government public "education"/indoctrination is child abuse.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-26-2017, 10:05 AM
Post: #29
RE: Discussion with a staunch critic, ICBMCatcher
Bump Sign to "welcome our newest member," ICBMCatcher

Oops

Big Grin

What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte
Government public "education"/indoctrination is child abuse.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-26-2017, 10:44 AM
Post: #30
RE: Discussion with a staunch critic, ICBMCatcher
...our newest member who, no matter how much hot air he blows, remains flaccid.


(Izzit an ad hominem if itz tru?) Skeptical

- 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
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


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