Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsIrrelevant to the point at hand, you said you did not reply to at
particular
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart Hawkinsstatement or question because it was self congratulatory.
No answer again
I'm sorry, I'm not spending all my time thinking about this thread.
*Yet*, *Yet*.
Your reason for not answering the question has been proven to be a lie,
therefore you have no reason to not have answered it.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardNo, it's true that email could be modified rather heavily by some kind
of filter such as you can implement in a mailreader such as mutt. I
meant to say "news" though, and it's also true those can be modified.
I don't really care whether my messages directed at you are modified
or not, though, but the principle of the thing is important.
Your meaning would be unchanged and the bad sentence structure would still
be bad.
Oh no, it's an undercover phrase structure grammarian!
When your meaning is as obfuscated as yours has been, it becomes important
to correct these things.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardYes, you have. Your range of expertise regarding judgment upon my
"propositional attitudes" exceeds the grasp I have of the beliefs of
family members, and not because I don't know them well enough. It's
"tinhorn" at best on your part to make sweeping statements about my
views.
well saying they are wrong is simple, they are.
That's not the way most people think about what other people say, and
for good reasons.
What good reason? In reality wither their opinions are right or wrong. If
two people think different things about the same topic, then only one may be
right and the other by definition is wrong. Now if these two people were to
discuss why they are right or wrong the one that actually mananges to make
points that can not be refuted by the other and whos points can refute said
others points, is extremely likely to be the one who is correct.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsIf i am not knowledgeable enough to make a statement then I will not.
I bet you don't ever drive drunk. Which is good, I guess.
I do not drink alcohol
Well, that makes it easy. I don't drive; that makes it easy, too.
Then you are disadvantaged then aren't you.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardInfrastructure is paid for by taxes. It's really not too complicated.
Sell the infrastructure, it does not fit the definition of a public good and
as sch is more efficiently controled by private ownership
On whose authority should we alienate public property, such that it
can be "efficiently controlled" by a special interest?
By authority of reasons application to the real world. In doing so we
discover economics and economics tells us that government should only
provide public goods (those that are non-rival and non-excludeable), of
which the only two identified for government supply are the police (law) and
the army (Air force, navy, etc)
Post by Jeff RubardThat's a kind
of "takings" too.
No it is not, tell me how it is taking by selling the products of theft on
the open market for the highest price possible and seeing as returning the
funds to their rightful owners is IMPOSSIBLE using that money to supply
public goods for all eternty without taxing ANYONE?
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardThat's something you can do after it's built, which requires paying
for it with taxes.
Is it built? Yes
Does it need to be built by taxes? No, private companies would if build it
if it was needed.
Well, they'd build it if the technology was already available or could
be cheaply and easily developed. Otherwise it might never happen,
like the moon landings and maybe even the Internet.
Says you? So what proof do you have of this anyway? None? I thought so.
Everything with a potential for profit would be funded and researched, and
in a free market it would be better funded. If you think otherwise just look
at the human genome project, it was supposed to take untill the year 3000+
when government was doing it and it was on track too. Then they turned it
over to private companies and BAM fininshed in one year, despite the fact it
was dozens of times more complicated then those making the predictions
realised.
The only one of the two items you mentioned that might possibly not ahve
occured is the moon landing and that is because it has done nothing to help
anyone in any way, the space project would be going along swimmingly but
landing on the moon might have been put on the back burner for a while.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardYou directly pay for a little fraction of what is necessary for it to
be usable.
I pay what is necessary for a private company to allow me access. I pay what
little cost I impose to the system. It is a subject of economics, something
I have proven you do not understand.
That's not the only cost to you being on the Internet, and I'm not
even being funny.
That has been disproven, if it were true the company would not allow me
access as they would then be operating at a loss.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsThe crowd I refer to is those that vote for my money.
My crowd doesn't vote for your money; they work for theirs, and really
don't think too far beyond that.
They don't vote Libertarian, therefore they vote for my money. Try to skirt
round it all you want but the fact remains if you vote for anyoen else then
you are voting for my money.
Well, they're pretty far away in a different country; I don't see why
you should be concerned.
Hitler killed Jews in Europe, that was pretty far away but I still would
have decried it.
The Rusian Commies killed Cossacks in Europe, that was pretty far away but I
still would have decried it.
The Chinese Commies starved millions in China, that was pretty far away but
I still would have decried it.
Etc etc etc.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardThe US Army. Most people are in favor of the idea of
taxation, that's not a communist thing.
Who cares how many people agree, I don't and as such I should be left
untaxed.
Sometimes it's important.
So you can violate my rights if you think it is important?
Interesting.
I can't violate your rights;
Yes you can, it is very simple all you need to do is vote for someone other
than the Libertarians.
Post by Jeff RubardI don't even have the capacity to do
that.
By voting for someone who supports immigration laws, taxation, trade
restrictions etc, by doing any of these things you violate my rights as a
human being.
Post by Jeff RubardThe government here can't violate your rights, either;
1. Immigration laws, I have the right to go where I choose. Seeing that is
the case taxation etc are a violation of my rights.
2. Trade restrictions, I have the right to trade with whomever I wish under
whatever conditions both I and whom I am trading with find agreeable.
3. International policy, I have the right to be left alone and so lonmg as
governments send troops around and expect other countried to follow suit, my
right is being trampelled. I do have to pay for the NZ troops in Afganistan
and Iraq you know.
Well these three ways, I guess that means you are wrong yet again.
Post by Jeff Rubardbut they
can "redefine" their defense and support of those rights (pending
judicial approval, of course).
No they can not, they may have the power to do that but they do not have the
right.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsWell that depends upon the agreement they had with the company.
That's right, but it still doesn't have too much to do with freedom.
The agreement was entirely voluntary and a voluntary agreement does not
limit your freedom, you limit it by accepting because what you are given is
valued, by you, as being greater than what you gave up.
NDAs limit your degrees of freedom in action
Yes but you agreed to be limited so it is not an act of force.
Post by Jeff Rubard(and if you don't think
so, you don't understand what you're doing, and "ignorance of the law
is no excuse" is a hoary statement of Anglophone law).
"The agreement was entirely voluntary and a voluntary agreement does not
limit your freedom, you limit it by accepting because what you are given is
valued, by you, as being greater than what you gave up."
I think I say in there that your freedom is limited by the agreement but
that limitation is self imposed.
The company does not limit your freedom, you do. It is trading, you give up
something for something you want.
Post by Jeff RubardIs this
onerous? Not really, but I feel the same way about taxes.
Who cares what you feel?
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardThey didn't *come into* *my house*, at least not while I was around;
but
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff Rubardthose are pretty fine distinctions, are they not?
Well I can say categorically they didn't come into your house ever and
that
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart Hawkinsthey did not initate force against you.
The hell you can, those are empirical statements;
Yes I can, They didn't do it. if they did you would have already mentioned
the police report you filed.
Maybe I don't sic the police on people everytime I feel like it (I
don't); but maybe *that's* not grounds for attempting to tell me all
about my life.
You said they enterd your house without permission and forced you to listen
to them and then clap when they had finished, that is an extremely violent
criminal action.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardI could have an
executive right in front of my face and still have genuine questions
about who it was or other aspects of its "reality", and thusly anyone
else who is busy speculating about possible events I report is on some
other kind of trip.
The probility of that being true is zero, therefore I can say it didn't
happen.
Firstly, you're never justified in assigning a probability of zero to
an event which does not violate the laws of physics
Yes you can, you can assign a probablity of zero to Bill Gates stealing
candy from a baby.
Yes you can, you can assign a probablity of zero to me caring at all for
someone with no money.
Yes you can, you can assign a probablity of zero to me Bungy jumping.
Yes you can, you can assign a probablity of zero to you winning a discussion
of economics or philosophy with me.
Post by Jeff Rubard(biology be
damned, even).
Why after all you can assign a probablity of zero to Bill Gates being the
father of Tiger Woods with biology.
Post by Jeff RubardSecondly, why did you feel the need to modify that
comment such that "the hell you can, those are empirical statements"
was removed?
Actually it wasn't removed, if you would like to check it is right there, I
shall ev en repost the relevant section for you
"> > > The hell you can, those are empirical statements;
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsYes I can, They didn't do it. if they did you would have already mentioned
the police report you filed.
Maybe I don't sic the police on people everytime I feel like it (I
don't); but maybe *that's* not grounds for attempting to tell me all
about my life."
As you can see I replied to it rather than removed it.
Post by Jeff RubardThat seems to be of a piece with the issues addressed in
your repsonse.
Well that is why I said
"Yes I can, They didn't do it. if they did you would have already mentioned
the police report you filed."
in response to it.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardThis is a slip on your part, as the "they" mentioned here does not
refer to some vague Army of Darkness which may or may not be coercive,
but fine distinctions (which are perfectly all right with me).
The final resort of the defeated, semantics.
Tell me what force did these rich men use?
How did these rich men coerce you?
Well, I kinda think/hope so, actually; but you're really fucking up on
syntactic/proof-theoretic issues so I'm not too concerned right now.
And a way you can coerce people is by bothering them when they're
trying to do other things, rich man or no; it's actually a pretty
street thing to do, but less onerous from panhandlers who can't get
back at you for not letting them rip you off (in quite so many ways).
(Do I have to prove such thing occurred? No, actually.)
Irrelevant, all of that is nonsence. you made the claim that rich men forced
you to listen to them while in your homen and that they made you clap after
they finished. You MUST prove this occured, failure to do so is proof that
you lied.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsDo you support democracy?
That is a system.
Oh, is that your idea of communism?
No, but the result is close enough.
Oh, that's a winner.
A belief that you should interfere with other people's lives and business.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardShould I not vote Democratic at
the next election, lest I be accused of initiating force worthy of
self-defense?
Yes, voting for anyone but the Libertarians is an act of force.
That's a winner, too (you believe in me, you've got no bounds).
Yes it is, voting for anyone else is supporting victimless crimes, taxation
and general rights violations by governmet.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsIf i am using reason and logic then other people using reason and logic
will
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart Hawkinssay exactly what I do.
That's never true in practice (outside certain special cases, of
course), and I don't happen to believe it's true in theory.
It is true in theory and practice. Reason applied to the same facts will
always mean the same result.
That's not borne out by the history of science;
Yes it is, science proves my position quite well.
Post by Jeff Rubardit (at least formerly)
didn't involve people speculating that everyone who came before them
was "seriously mentally defective", just that they missed an important
detail or two.
So in other words they applied reason to different facts.
By way of not seeing or being unable to see all the facts (or even the
admittedly limited number physicists etc can see currently) they came to
different conclusions on how to explain the occurances we see daily, I
think, no, I know that is perfectly conducive with my position. For your
argument to be correct it would mean two people theorising over momentum
could come up with wildly different equations from observing the exact same
data.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsYes because they didn't exist.
Those weren't the arguments you were looking for. It was a trick, ha
ha ha.
(Oh, shit, what can I say?)
If they didn't exist, nothing.
If they did exist you could look them up and repost them here as I have done
in this post with your claim I deleted a section when i clearly had not.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff Rubard"So-and-so is a real jerk" is a statement which expresses no matter of
fact; it permits only of collective agreement (!), and this is no
particularly wide-ranging collectivity we're talking about.
I don't make arguments about personal characteristics.
You make imperious pronouncements.
Then give me an example of where I have?
Any time you say "I am right and you are wrong and that's all there is
to it", that's an imperious statement. There are scads of them in
this thread.
well when I am right and you are wrong there is little else to do but point
it out.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsNo it does not. Judges follow preciendt, end of story. If they don't
higher
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart Hawkinscourts over rule the verdict.
Precedent. It's not so hard to spell; as for the rest, I guess that
went over your head :)
Precident is always followed by judges and that is the end of this.
Precedent is followed and made by judges, and there ain't no "i" in
it. That's a precedent most people follow, which is the end of my
respect for your understanding of the law.
Ohh so mispelling removes the fact I am right? Interesting.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardThey're really not. Ask a lawyer.
Then why is it that when someone goes against precident it is considered
to
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart Hawkinsbe such a shock? Why then does it have to go to appeals and review, to
scrutiny and re-evaluation?
You have nothing Mr Rubard, only lies.
Don't waste my time, asshole; you're playing a lot faster and looser
here (though not with the facts, I swear I wasn't saying that). It's
just your creepolatrous tone which keeps me defusing your comments.
Just answer my questions, but then you can't because they prove you wrong.
Well, maybe you should believe that.
If you could answer them you would have, it would be a lot simpler and
faster than doing what you are now
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsLawsuit, you lose.
Ohh please more, I do enjoy making a mockery of your so called arguments
and
Post by Jeff RubardYou're a fool, what I say is true.
And that is what Lawsuits are for, this means you lose.
I don't understand this comment, the law is not for fooling (rather
strictly circumscribes it, in fact).
Lawsuits are for making sure suppliers prevent maggots etc.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff Rubardas the legal case can be crippling, are not
necessary always so, but are; there are civil-law actions against
corporations.
That doesn't even begin to make sence. The cases where they lose are the
cases where they actually don't have a case to begin with.
There are civil-law actions against corporations. I swear.
Who said there weren't, infact I mentioned that as a reason that they would
not do bad things to their products.
You said there was not a historical precedent for it, which there is;
No I did not.
Post by Jeff Rubardproducts were adulterated with other things in the 19th century,
before regulation.
regulation is irrelevant, common law is enough.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardThis is juvenile, but that can work pretty well too.
Ohh you can't find an instance i actually insult you, funny seeing you
claimed I did.
No response, this seems to be a pattern.
Yes, I am here to answer other kinds of questions.
Well I suggest you start doing so.
And why do you not answer questions to back up your claims? Is it because
you can't?
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsMy evidentiary standard is having facts that actually argee with you.
I like people to agree with me.
Well start being right and maybe more people will agree with you.
Oh, so you're the arbiter of right reason, too?
right reason? No.
Reason? Well reason needs no arbiter but reason.
Post by Jeff RubardWow, I had no idea
who I was talking to.
Neither did I, I now see the Tick is real and still needing to be returned
to where he came from.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardYou can do it without wanting to, or even knowing that you're doing
it.
Whatever.
This is not jive. This is snide, it's different.
How said it was 'jive'?
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsNo I am not, look up the word Vigilante, you will find that I am right
and
Post by Jeff RubardIt's a matter for thought, not dictionaries.
No it is a matter of fact. A person whon uses ciizens arrest is a vigilante.
No.
Deny it all you want, it just means you are wrong.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsIt is desireable to being harmed in any way shape or form.
What is this supposed to mean, other than that you got whupped with an
inconvenient fact (the kind I'm interested in).
How did I get whipped? I am not a policeman and never said I was.
No, you're a jerk itching for a "serious problem" with someone, which
was what I was demonstrating (I was perfectly aware you weren't a cop
prior to that).
How does stating that a criminal should die rather than an peacefull person
get injured mean that I am itching for a serious problem with someone?
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardNo, I didn't see that movie either; I know what a .50 caliber weapon
is like (elephant guns), but I'm not that interested in projectile
weaponry.
So? You don't have to be.
Good, every little bit helps. (Ladies, I'm not a gun nut!)
But then neither am I, I only want a gun for self defence and for defence of
others.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsWell I am the one that would be sitting self satisfied.
People like to say this, but they don't like to go through with it (I
know, I'm always game for real). But you're far away from me, so
maybe that's a good excuse.
That is just time wasting nonsence.
Try me.
I already have, every time I reply to you.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardThe point is, force is bad but can't be "explained away";
No, there is not possible explaination to justify the initiation of
force.
Post by Jeff RubardYou have one yourself (self-defense).
That is force in retaliation to force, it is by no means the initiation of
force.
Nice try though, I mean only a hundred other people have tried that one and
been burned by the inescapeable logic of self defence and the initiation of
force.
There's no such thing as inescapable logic.
Actually there is, logic that can not be denied. That is what inescapeable
logic means, it may not be literally true but then logic isn't an acutal
object so the term inescapeable can not mean it's literal meaning can it?
Post by Jeff RubardThat's something else.
Trust me.
Why? You lie so often.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsI am leaving you alone, you don't have to read my posts or respond to
them.
Post by Jeff RubardI will not do so following this post.
Good.
Changed my mind, actually. I haven't been enjoying this the whole
time, but sometimes you really shouldn't stop when you want to.
Good.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsTotally irrelevant. that is to with companies, emplyees etc doing things
that are bad. It has nothing to do with helping people in peril not
caused
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart Hawkinsby me or those associated with the company i am the director etc of. It
has
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart Hawkinsnothing to do with helping a starving man nor alerting a person to a
falling
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart Hawkinsboulder.
But I think you said it best in this very post I now reply to when you
said
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart Hawkinsthe following
"I can't be responsible for things I didn't do."
You see, even you agree with me.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
Feeling stupid? You should be.
Joint and several liability applies to individuals as well, in fact
even more so.
Not in the way you need it to for me to be wrong.
No, if you're associated with somebody concerning a business project
and they do something bad, you can be held responsible even if you
didn't approve or "didn't know". Sorry, ask any lawyer.
True, but then again we were not discussing anything even remotely connected
to that fact. So it means that it is totally irrelevant and as such my
statement above (Not in the way you needd it to for me to be wrong) is
utterly true.
Now i ask again, are you feeling stupid?
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardAm I feeling stupid about this? Not at all.
It's still irrelevant.
Tell me about it.
The man's condition as starving nor the rolling boulder were caused by me
nor anyone directly associated with me (In a way that would trigger Joint
and several liability), therefore as I stated from the beginning Joint and
several liability is totally irrelevant to our discussion. Given that fact;
I do not have to act to prevent, alleviate, or comensate for peril I did not
cause.
The End.
Again we see you lost and this time we have proof positive that you are not
above obfuscation, irrelvancies, or outright bald faced lies.
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardAs far as I know he didn't use a thorn, they didn't use thorns in
Middle
Post by Jeff RubardPost by Stuart HawkinsPost by Jeff RubardEnglish. As far as Æ and such, that's an orthographic issue and it
might somehow be telling but it isn't telling me he had a particularly
"originary" view of the English people.
Whatever, fact is I am right and you are wrong.
Yeah, I see what this is about. Good riddance to *good* rubbish, good
rubbish.
Fact is according to common law i do not have to help someone in peril if I
did not cause that peril
No, if you had foreknowledge (and lord, you have knowledge enough) of
the possibility of harm and are benefitting either from cutting
corners on safety measures or *the harm itself*, there's a *very*
genuine legal question about culpability even if you refrained from
acting.
Ohh so you mean if by my action (cutting corners or safety measures) I am
causing peril then i must act, then yes I totally agree. But one must ask
how that is relevant to my statement that if I did not cause the peril I am
not responsible?
Nor do I see how it refutes your statement "I can't be responsible for
things I didn't do."
Post by Jeff RubardAnything else is a story people tell themselves.
I agree, you are responsible for your actions