why thank you good lookin!

care for a date with a communist, a socialist, a republican, a democrat, a heathen, a christian, a globalist, a god, a devil, a demon, an angel....

come to pappa!

Thank you for explaining your point of view more fully.

If we did not already have a corrupt world in which people in power abuse their power, and in which people are intentionally kept dis-empowered, and in which personal liberty and privacy are being eroded every decade, I would be more open to this line of thought.

You seem to be looking at the trade-offs involved in having or not-having some kinds of people mixed in with the rest of us (those with violent inclinations, who don't control themselves).

But we also need to look at how this can change the relationship between the citizen and the state. Look at all the ways that these devices could be abused by the state.

I am sympathetic to your line of thinking with you make comparisons with the prison system, we can make improvements there but I don't think that implants are the answer.


Also, consider this: what happens when an implanted person encounters a violent, non-implanted person? Will the implanted person be incapable of the action needed to protect themselves?

Sorry, didn't mean to but this nesting is getting fairly large. Miss one and the whole thing collapses. Didn't have time to edit within allotted window. My bad.



Abuses of logic, would that not be within the same arena as the words, a matter of perception. I believe I have been very explicit that the words we have been debating are truth and perception. Your generalization is not very explicit at all.



Oversimplify, not really. It is the attempt to add complexity to an otherwise very simple concept that causes the issues. And again, I but provide the definition, it is the action that places one in the "ideological box", a decision of self choice not a decision of judgement.




No, that is not the point. The point is your imposition of a right to judge the actions of another that is really none of your business. It is your propensity to ascribe your values upon another when you can ill be the injured party. And Odumbo by his very acts can't claim to be an injured party. However, your actions have caused me to be an injured party by trying to deny me my inalienable right of free expression. Trying to imply some arcane label only intensives the injury as a further usurpation of my right.



Please, go back and review, it was not I that brought the pedestal into the conversation. I but instilled that the pedestal would work good with a rope. It was your proclamation that because you didn't call Odumbo Odumbo that you didn't place him on a pedestal.



Ah, a matter we can fully agree upon. But if you can agree upon this premise, why the problem with the overall concept of truth and perception?



And what would be the difference? The truths of the universe has always been valid since the beginning of time and will be true into eternity. It is but the perceptions of man that waver.

And without morality, the truths of the universe cannot be understood because an immoral man has no truth but the color of truth to mask his true being. Is not man a physical being within a physical world? How can they ever be separated? What is true in the microcosm is true in the macrocosm.

"Truth is belligerent. Truth is, by its very nature, at war with the forces of falsehood and deceit." - Bertolt Brecht

yes, it would work quite well for those whom love to beat dogs as well...

oh, and any talk is acceptable!

just not violent actions!

Sorry, that is not what is being implied. The statement connotates that you are an alternate ego of myself and I am making both posts.

Something to do with your challenges to that person are along the same lines as mine.

oh, forget it. I'll just ring the bell instead for you.

Yes, but somehow the fact that we are 'quoting the same things' appears to be part of the 'evidence', , as if the reader was unable to understand the simple fact that you and I were quoting each others statements to each other, and therefore 'quoting the same things'.

Are you not aware of what post you are responding to?

Sorry, that is never going to happen. While I have no problem destroying that which exists, I will in the same stroke destroy the new world order.

I am of the premonition of Patrick Henry, if I can not be free, I will accept death because in death is freedom.

TO?

No. About. Same difference. Keep twisting. Keep talking to "self". lmfao.

Now you're getting somewhere, but not where a prudent person would want to be. But it does explain a lot about the person.

We can keep declaring that our own point is 'the point'... you have a point you want to make, I have a point I want to make.

It's true that I disapprove of you calling Obama 'Odumbo', but its not that important. You don't seem to want to talk about the point I was trying to make, that's fine.



Nonsense. You right of free expression is not harmed by mere criticism.



There is a considerable issue of language. I may or may not agree with your actual thoughts; I disagree with what I believe to be your intention and meaning, based on my understanding of your words.

there will be no need to protect one self...

thats just the point.

a true quality of life possible for all whom commit to no violence.

some are just so programmed to think it has to exist, they actually fight to keep it.

all not accepting by consent to non violent people management systems will not be allowed to live anywhere near, and live in a completely segregated part of the world...

unless they concede to a none violent implants device.

they violent sector, or those whom deem violence good and ok, will not have any modern conveniences or modern amenities...

it shall be dog eat dog...

just as they like it.

they shall have to fend for them self in the primitive sectors of the world, where it's a might cold too...

as they get no heat nor electricity nor foods from civilized society.

it's gonna be great...

talk about people being willing to dump their anger, as truly that is all it takes.

the angry, the violent, belong there, until they concede to LEARNING how to not validate their anger, and live non violently and aggressively with their fellow species.

oh, i can assure you, it is not hard to keep the primitive from entering modern society.

it shall be grand!

and look at all the ways any system now can be abused...

from top to bottom...

no one is allowed in that is not tagged, and if not tagged, and they enter, they are debilitated by their own "primitive implant"...

and being that it is coursing through the blood stream, it is inseparable from the blood it self...

if a violent one with a primitive tag enters civilized zones, there are none around that will not know it, as the sound and smell put off none will be able to miss...

the world will forsake the need for violence that was only ever adopted as necessary by the violent them self.

and conflagration of violence and needing to safeguard against it will never again be possible...

smiles

The earliest mention of "pedestal" I can find in the thread was a 12:23pm post, on page 5, by you saying:

""To place any person upon a pedestal, except for a loved one by one's own consent, and somehow imagine they are somehow superior is the mark of a statist, one that believes in slavery and needs a master.""

Granted there have been edits, and also granted my memory is not perfect.

Yeah, that is the problem from anothers standpoint. Not just that we are quoting each other to respond but that in the macrocosm we are moving along the same avenues. It is but in the details that show the difference.

But I appreciate your honor and would debate you any time.

oh yes indeedee...

totally!

absoluteamondo!

all the violence in Ferguson never need happen again...

but then since some use it but for debate and entertainment, of course, these will want the same old same old to stay, just as it is.

or what else would there be to make one self feel it self better with!

damn...

but hotdiggitydog thank god we have some people on earth who actually want to solve and change what creates less good for all, not just complain to prove how others are less intelligent than one self.

You really should cut back on the sugar. And you do know that with toothpaste, unlike protein, you should spit, not swallow? Or was it that flu shot?