Who But The Mindless?

[Rune]

You proved your own mindlessness by attacking Brietbart- who by the way did not write the article- DOH! Though even if he had, the article makes valid points.

Which points are the "valid" ones?

[NOVA]

According to your evil, anti-human ideology.



Fine. Let's abolish police, socialized protection of property. If you can't defend your own property, you are unworthy of it, and I will congratulate the thief for beating the weaker.

Even with an abundance of humorous posts from pinheads, this one deserves a special recognition....

Socialized protection of property ?......thats funny stuff......do you really have
policemen surrounding your home and car, etc. protecting it.....?.....and you neighbors do too ?.....how many cops are in your neighborhood, 24/7 ?

I wonder why isn't there any cops protecting my home ?.........or are you fuckin' hallucinating....


..You should have said, " If you WON'T defend your own property, you are unworthy of it", then I'd agree with you....

[icedancer2theend]

No, you just proved his argument. Neither novelist is anything but a novelist. See how that works?

No, I proved he had no argument- I have never said Rand wasn't a novelist- see how that works?

[Rune]

Even with an abundance of humorous posts from pinheads, this one deserves a special recognition....

Socialized protection of property ?......thats funny stuff......do you really have
policemen surrounding your home and car, etc. protecting it.....?.....and you neighbors do too ?.....how many cops are in your neighborhood, 24/7 ?

I wonder why isn't there any cops protecting my home ?.........or are you fuckin' hallucinating....


..You should have said, " If you WON'T defend your own property, you are unworthy of it", then I'd agree with you....

Are you really too stupid to understand that all of our multiple overlapping layers of police are paid for by society?

[Rune]

No, I proved he had no argument- I have never said Rand wasn't a novelist- see how that works?

So you admit she was a novelist?

[Bfgrn]

Rand is wrong? How so? Please do give us your philosophical rationale for her wayward thinking~

Let me ask you a question icedancer2theend. If your 12 year old daughter was murdered, hacked up into pieces, the killer sewed her eyes open and brought your daughter's head and torso to your husband, would you have any problem with an author who gushed over your daughter's killer and filled her notebooks with worshipful praise of the person who extinguished your daughter's life?

Would hatred be 'wayward thinking~ '???

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Even with an abundance of humorous posts from pinheads, this one deserves a special recognition....

Socialized protection of property ?......thats funny stuff......do you really have
policemen surrounding your home and car, etc. protecting it.....?.....and you neighbors do too ?.....how many cops are in your neighborhood, 24/7 ?

I wonder why isn't there any cops protecting my home ?.........or are you fuckin' hallucinating....

Without police, the right to property would only exist as much as you individually have the right to protect it. So you'd effectively have a might makes right situation. You wouldn't have a right to property, you'd have a right to whatever you individually had the strength to protect. You'd also have a right to whatever you had the strength to take. A true right to property, on the other hand, is nothing but the government subsidization of weakness. Property is socialism.

..You should have said, " If you WON'T defend your own property, you are unworthy of it", then I'd agree with you....

Well, then. I suppose the government has every right to the taxes you pay. After all, you do not respond to them by refusing to pay them, and then shooting the police who come in an attempt to enforce the law. You won't defend your own property from what you actively label theft. Under your logic, you have no right to it.

Really, this is further than I'd ever be willing to go.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

[Phantasmal]

Well now, that pretty much says it all.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Yes they are. We establish laws due to objective truths.

We sort of have two conflicting definitions of the word "law" in the west. There are laws of man and laws of nature. A law of man obviously can't be objective. A law of nature, on the other hand, can't be violated. If we find that something has violated a physical law, we don't pull it over and give it a ticket. Clearly we screwed up somewhere; that's one reason physics in recent times has shied away from calling it's models of the universe "laws". When you claim that your ideology is justified by natural law, your doing nothing but equivocating between these two definitions. It's total nonsense.

If you wish to live in a lawless society where there is no objective truths, then you would be siding with the likes of Nietzsche.

When did Nietzsche advocate a lawless society? You do know that Rand was influenced by Nietzsche, don't you? It was largely the Nietzsche of "The Will to Power" as well, which is a fascist book put heavily edited and put together by his fascist sister which doesn't really represent his true ideology. This is the same Nietzsche that influenced the Nazi's.

I know I know- you establish laws based on a need to live in society- but then it is you, that needs a totalitarian enity to rule the classes and decide which laws are needed. Laws then become mere capricious exercises in futility, based on the cultural desires of the time- That's madness.

If it is madness, it is your job to change it. If those who perceive injustice simply sit back, don't fight, and do nothing, the system doesn't work.

My ideology? You mean that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights? The ideology that was at the root of our nations founding? The one that wants smaller, not larger government? At least we have established that it is your ideology that is a complete fraud to our Constitution and not mine~

The declaration of independence is that thing that starts with a natural rights justification, not the constitution. I don't disagree with the results of the Declaration, but it's become apparent to me that it's reasoning was poor. Simply declaring something to be self-evident has never been a good argument. Of course, people love fallacious things. From looking at the quotes of founders you see popularly thrown around, you'd think that they never made arguments. The proles snip the conclusion out of context and simply present that, utterly ignoring the long arguments that they often made for their position.

[NOVA]

Are you really too stupid to understand that all of our multiple overlapping layers of police are paid for by society?

Don't you understand that cops don't protect your property to any significant degree......?
99 % of their function is to catch the bad guy AFTER THE FACT......
And society pays for EVERYTHING one way or another....whats your point ?

The fact that people hire other people for some job doesn't make them socialized in any fashion......
its no different than hiring garbage men, snow plow operators, or highway pavers......

Your pinhead definition of what is "socialization" is laughable.

[NOVA]

Without police, the right to property would only exist as much as you individually have the right to protect it. So you'd effectively have a might makes right situation. You wouldn't have a right to property, you'd have a right to whatever you individually had the strength to protect. You'd also have a right to whatever you had the strength to take. A true right to property, on the other hand, is nothing but the government subsidization of weakness. Property is socialism.

What is your point....NO ONE made or is trying make it that you don't need police....WTF are you trying to prove, besides you lack of understanding whats posted.

Well, then. I suppose the government has every right to the taxes you pay. After all, you do not respond to them by refusing to pay them, and then shooting the police who come in an attempt to enforce the law. You won't defend your own property from what you actively label theft. Under your logic, you have no right to it.

Really, this is further than I'd ever be willing to go.

This last crap doesn't even come up to the level of bullshit....its utterly senseless.....not even good strawman

.

[Bfgrn]

This thread has gone off the rails.

[Granule]

Dear liberal. Please stop misrepresenting the scriptures. You are a heathen. You do not understand the scriptures. It is best if you simply step off and go plant some hemp fields.

[Bfgrn]

Dear liberal. Please stop misrepresenting the scriptures. You are a heathen. You do not understand the scriptures. It is best if you simply step off and go plant some hemp fields.

Conservatives are not in the image of Christ. They are in the image of Satan.

Matthew 25:34-40
The Final Judgment

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’