Comments on Want to be a free thinker but still a nice person: Tea baggers attack family

Thanks Marty, I had to consider what you wrote bec...

2009-12-02T01:13:07.126-08:00

Thanks Marty, I had to consider what you wrote because you do write at some length.

First point, on crime, I think my argument stands.

If people don't think of the consequences then society failed to provide the required education, but if they calculate that they won't be caught and suffer any consequences then society has failed equally.

Why should the individual be punished for society's mistakes? Surely the correct course is for society to make up for those mistakes.

If that means to re-educate while preventing a reoccurrence of the behaviour which lead to the crime then fine, but society should never compound the original mistake by failing to accept responsibility and executing athe ultimate sanction.

Secondly, on your opposition to 'socialism'.

I tried to disentangle your lenthy exposition, as it seems you got somewhat confused in a bad comparison.

From what I could read you don't oppose the politics, only the actual level of the sums proposed by those who you characterise as holding those politics.

So technically you are leading yourself into arguments to which you don't subscribe.

I'd give you much more credit if you substituted more accurate terms when trying to explain your opposition, as it seems obvious that your opposition is based on the reality on the ground rather than anything theoretical.

So let me suggest your opposition is against what is 'uneconomic' as the basis for your argument.

This is something which everyone can agree with, rather than the deliberately divisive language of the 'tea-baggers' which is designed to build a base for future election campaigns.

I'd argue that Obama's Democratics are not 'socialist', just less anti-social then the Reps. However, there remains a significant debate to be had on the economic course being undertaken and we shall see how it plays out over the next few years.

The growing disconnect between Wall Street and Main Street is clearly not something which can be simply laid at the door of the current administration.

A job, not a house as bankers like to say, is the ...

2009-11-28T08:05:51.754-08:00

A job, not a house as bankers like to say, is the greatest asset a person can have because the profit margin on labor is very high compared to other commodities, at least when that labor is augmented with some skill or talent.

Any society with a high number of jobs will experience a high level of prosperity because more people are producing wealth, that is, they are producing things of value to trade with others.

Conversely, those policies which lead to a lessening in the number of jobs, such as giveaway programs, destroy the overall production of wealth within a society.

Not forgetting the socialism issue Mr. Oranjepan, ...

2009-11-28T08:02:31.123-08:00

Not forgetting the socialism issue Mr. Oranjepan, you said this:

Since the concept of 'ownership' is at the heart of my understanding of socialism and Marty's understanding of social relationships too, perhaps we could investigate this concept a bit more deeply.

The nuclear family unit operating under traditional rules and roles is a socialist economic structure.

Going back in time to the traditions surrounding the formation of the nuclear unit, the tradition of giving (or selling) a young woman to a man was the basis for what followed. The socialist structure began with a man acquiring capital with a particular set of potentialities, including the ability to bear children.

Engaging in sexual commerce the parents produced the family, which then was totally subsidized by the parents until the children became old enough, at three or four or five to begin to contribute in a positive way to the family economics.

Although a socialist unit within, still the unit was engaged in capital production, rearing animals or raising crops, which bear natural interest in good years in the form of increased herds or flocks and crops in excess of the seeds used to plant them.

Socialism cannot exist without capitalism, there must be some profitable source of funding for society, just as for the nuclear family, to prosper. No profit ends ultimately in annihilation.

The form of capitalism that people commonly object to is that which takes too much from the workers (children) and gives to much to management (parents). It could happen that there could be a family where the parents were so engaged in some vice that the sustenance of the whole unit was spent and the worker children were left hungry, ill clothed, and unschooled.

Political socialism attempts to prevent this possibility by setting into place regulations forcing the managing parents to more equitably support the working children so want and privation is not found.

Suppose there were a family where not only the managing parents fell prey to vice, but the children as well? The whole unit becomes dysfunctional, and whose fault is that?

Should the family next door give up its sustenance because it favors virtuous activity or vice, and produces in excess of what it needs for survival? Should all suffer for the vices of the few, who are in fact lower in number naturally, but increasing in number in those countries where such wealth transfer schemes are in effect. Why work until you actually start to starve to death? As long as others are working and you can enjoy the warm sun and the cool waters, what incentive is there to share the work as well as the bounty?

Here is based part of my opposition to socialism.

Most all ancient societies provided for the payment of some tax or tithe of 10% for the maintenance of the poor, those who could not work. This number must have been an actuarial number consistent across much of the globe because it is so common.

How is it that now, with the highest food production rates ever, that governments require up to 70% tax and the churches still ask for tithes of at least 10%? Has our improved standard of living and increased production increased the number of the infirm, or has it increased the number of the unwilling?

I believe it is the latter because historically all societies tending to pure democracy suffer when the
unwilling realize they have the same voting power as the willing, and vote for themselves the property of the willing, creating over time growing numbers of the unwilling as the willing begin to see that their standard of living approaches that of the unwilling- this is to them an inequity as they give more and have less and the unwilling give less and have more.
Production begins a gradual decline as it did in Sweden in the late 70's and 80's forcing the government to allow the willing to keep more of what they earned and forcing it to institute laws forcing more of the unwilling to become at least minimally productive.

"Yet when it comes to murder, those who commi...

2009-11-28T07:28:38.783-08:00

"Yet when it comes to murder, those who commit it do so largely without comprehension of the personal or social consequences their behaviour or because they haven't been able to learn."

I cannot agree with this. The person who kills another for his money, or his wife, or any other piece of property knows he does wrong. If it were not wrong to take the property of others without asking no one would be so lacking as to need to kill another to obtain property.

Then there is the case of lust killers. Jeffrey Dahlmer, and every other serial lust killer I've read about, stated that they knew that what they were doing was wrong, they just enjoyed it so much they kept doing it. Even if they don't know it's wrong, putting them to death halts the ongoing murders, but I think it would be a very rare case where any killer was unaware of the wrongness of his actions.

I do respect your point of view though, in it you express your compassion and a willingness to accept a portion of the burden of the sins of others, not a bad thing, but in my view unproductive and misguided. In some special cases I could agree, such as the case of the father in Baton Rouge who killed his son's rapist. And I am sure there are other special cases that would apply as well- like the schizophrenic who killed and ate the young man on the bus in Canada. The only advantage to putting this killer to death would be that society is not forced to support him, and possibly it would put an end to whatever suffering drives him to do these horrible things. I've know a few schizophrenics and they weren't happy people, but I would not have ended their life to save the expense of society trying to help them with food, clothing, and medical care.

Well, I agree that no behaviour is just behaviour ...

2009-11-28T07:14:57.668-08:00

Well, I agree that no behaviour is just behaviour - it all leaves a memory, which we can interpret as a spiritual imprint, and it all requires an intellectual framework to enable us to cope with it and overcome any negative reactions to prevent any harmful behaviour resulting in the future.

But this is something which is not easily learnt, rather it is a conception of universal laws which grows with us and within us.

This creates an immense problem with extreme behaviour (such as killing) - even soldiers undergo lengthy training to enable them to go to the front line, and recieve after care to enable them to reintegrate into society after their tours.

Yet when it comes to murder, those who commit it do so largely without comprehension of the personal or social consequences their behaviour or because they haven't been able to learn.

How we treat murderers and serious offenders really comes down to a view about whether we consider them capable of learning and whether we consider it viable to supply the resources to do so.

My own view is that part of being human is the capacity to learn and it requires us to consciously dehumanise others to deny them that opportunity.

"And by that there are no exceptions - even s...

2009-11-28T07:02:07.323-08:00

"And by that there are no exceptions - even slight anger issues indicate some underlying memory which causes discomfit"

This is one of the most profound thoughts you've yet expressed Mr. Oranjepan.

I am not immune to anger, though increasingly so, at times anger arises in me but passes quickly. A change began to come over me afte the last debate I had with Lisa and I've experienced a great release of tension resulting in a clarity I did not previously have.

Anger arises when desire is frustrated. Remove the obstacle to the desire and the anger disappears. If one is bound to see only one or two possibilities for the removal of an obstacle frustrating his desire, then his ability to remove that obstacle is severely limited. Anger itself limits the ability to act on a plan to remove the obstacle, creating even more anger. One must become unattached to one's actions in order to be able to effectively deal with anger and the removal of obstacles to fulfillment.

Mr. Oranjepan, the sight of vomit and the smell of...

2009-11-28T06:54:57.783-08:00

Mr. Oranjepan, the sight of vomit and the smell of dirty baby diapers disgusts me to the point that I wretch uncontrollably, it is an automatic reaction no one faults me for.

All forms of sex are held by the yogis to be disgusting, yet to the practioners the disgust is not seen. I do not care what gay people do, but I wish they would not do it in public. It would be okay if they would just hold hands, or appear as couples and act like heterosexuals; some do behave in just this way and I welcome them and accept them. What I do not welcome or accept is the outrageous, intentionally provocative in-your-face sexual displays championed in the gay pride parades.

I support the death penalty because I allow all the natural right to kill, but hold all to be bound by duty not to kill with just cause. Society has determined that just cause does not extend to lust murder, to murder for gain, or for some other forms of murder; it is my personal opinion that some rapes are of such an heinous nature the death penalty is appropriate. I believe that in those cases where society can determine a person has killed another unjustly and with malice or lust, society has a duty to remove that person from society. It effectively prevents that one person from ever doing it again; if they did it one time they will likely be less resistant to the impulse to kill a second time.

Nature has built into most of us a reluctance to kill unjustly, even extending this to the killing of animals. It is common among deer hunters that the killing of a deer causes a severe emotional reaction the hunter attempts to cover with bravado. Some cultures acknowledge the violation even of hunting by offering prayers at the point of the kill.

That's fascinating, but you do keep changing t...

2009-11-28T06:51:06.304-08:00

That's fascinating, but you do keep changing the subject.

It's almost like you want people to hear you, but that you don't care whether anyone agrees with you on any specific point.

Mr. Oranjepan, I think I originally underestimated...

2009-11-28T06:43:20.586-08:00

Mr. Oranjepan, I think I originally underestimated you by far. You've consistently shown yourself to be a person who seeks balance though at times I think you are a bit off the mark. But we all are, aren't we?

And please, pardon me for putting that girl on you that day. She really did want to talk to you and she was delighted with several of the things you said, you just rushed it a bit.

Thank you for being so balanced in view as to not attack me, I appreciate that greatly.

I will clear up something else for you, my abortion view.

Every person has a natural right to do whatsoever he or she pleases, but not all things are expedient because there is a natural penalty attached to all actions; sometimes the penalty is negative, so the result is seen as a good, and sometimes the penalty is seen as bad.

A woman has the right to do what she wants with her body, and her body alone. The dna of even the smallest cell clump contains dna unique to that growing individual.
If a woman destroys that fetus, she has destroyed a unique individual she has no natural rights over, but over which she has natural power.

The Romans at times allowed fathers to kill children of any age; the natural right to kill was protected as a civil right under these laws.

Just so, the natural right of a woman to abort is now protected as a civil right, a right created by man and not by nature. There are any number of penalties attached to birth control and abortion, including destruction of the body through increased cancer risk and emotional distress caused by a woman's acquiesence to the culture in which she was raised. She may abort, but it is not penalty free; she may lose her natural right to bear another child and she may lose years from her life spent suffering from cancer and disfigurement.

I do not support the civil right which legalizes the power to kill an innocent, unique individual. I acknowledge the natural right and have no choice but to support it knowing that what transpires between the Creator and the transgressor is entirelty between the two of them.

Well, you certainly seem to have given the impress...

2009-11-28T06:37:07.562-08:00

Well, you certainly seem to have given the impression you're closed-minded to a few of the commenters here!

But talking about your opposition to forced state control takes me back to your support for the death penalty - isn't the voluntary form of capital punishment a lynch mob?

What I mean is that, ok, it's fair enough to have beliefs, but there are always limits on their applicability in any given situation and you need to carefully think through any course of action.

You may well be disgusted at gay sex, but are you going to police every bedroom in the land?

Social conformity creates huge pressures on all individuals, and anyone who is forced by their circumstances to confront their own behaviour must look back into their own past to understand exactly where these problems stem from in order to resolve them.

And by that there are no exceptions - even slight anger issues indicate some underlying memory which causes discomfit.

So before anyone starts judging we should be careful about what it says about ourselves.

I called you on one thing only. You ducked, dived,...

2009-11-28T06:33:53.573-08:00

I called you on one thing only. You ducked, dived, wriggled, became potty mouthed, accused, and did everything to avoid answering the thing I called you on. You seem to have had an education so I can only assume you are adopting this as a tactic of avoidance.

You may be as rude as you wish, bully and bluster all you wish, and seek to divert me, but I still call you on your first post.

You were offensive.

You continue to be offensive.

I will continue to call you on it. You need to withdraw, and without adding your own peculiar sexually fixated brand of smut to that word.

There are no other topics in this thread that I will discuss with you until you withdraw. That is my punch on your nose, if you like. That has always been my punch on your nose.

Mr. Oranjepan, the crucial point you overlook alon...

2009-11-28T06:23:38.045-08:00

Mr. Oranjepan, the crucial point you overlook along with the others is that I am not close minded at all, I am supremely open minded.

It is because I say that I am against forced state control and that I favor voluntarism that people quit listening and never ask me what voluntarism is.

You have now confirmed my suspicions, Mr. Trent, a...

2009-11-28T06:18:27.682-08:00

You have now confirmed my suspicions, Mr. Trent, as I suspected you would.

For you the most important issue on this blog is your own selfish advancement of your gay victimization. You have paradigm lock.

I have not spoken offensively regarding gays, even of those who have to have awkward objects removed from their rears in emergency rooms, or those in Washington how partake in gay pedophile rings, a la the Larry King affair.

No, you have taken offense only because it pleases you to be offended. And just as it pleases you to be offended, it pleases you to offend.

Should I give up my right to free speech because you would have me say things in a different way? I don't think so, for if I fell into that habit what would the next freedom I gave up be?

I am sorry you cannot see the warmth I feel for you, that you are not tough enough to seriously engage with personal attack; so you were scarred a little in battle, you are a big boy aren't you?

Didn't your dad ever tell you that when the school bully takes your lunch you are supposed to punch him in the nose no matter how big he is?

You've said I'm a school bully. So punch me back, debate me on immigration, tell me what your thoughts are.

I wish I was overlooking something, at least then ...

2009-11-28T06:11:04.926-08:00

I wish I was overlooking something, at least then I could have some indication of what you're talking about. At the moment it's all going completely over my head.

It's interested that you say you're for open borders, that's not exactly something which fits with closed minds.

Mr. Brody, I think the reason you decline to comme...

2009-11-28T06:10:48.039-08:00

Mr. Brody, I think the reason you decline to comment honestly on US immigration law is because your Master would release you if you wrote something he didn't like and you know it. Who knows who from what party would ban you from your so-called news gathering?

Try living as a freeman. It's fun. Have faith that your native gifts will provide the security you seek from your Master.

How many times do you have to hear something befor...

2009-11-28T06:09:02.730-08:00

How many times do you have to hear something before it gets into your brain?

I will not discuss your blind alleys or diversions with you. I object to your offensive words in your first comment about homosexuals.

All the rest of your rants and peculiar outpourings have been to seek to distract people from your entrenched view. I will not be fooled by you.

Your behaviour is immoderate, your language is form the gutter and the pictures you paint are designed to disgust and denigrate people.

That behaviour, like your fist comment, disgusts me.

Perhaps there is someone worthwhile behind the facade, but increasingly your comments mean I doubt that. You do not appear to be someone any right thinking person would wish to share air with. And you are achieving that by dint of your own foul mouth and your own bigotry.

Perhaps you should offer to join Fred Phelps and his band of disgusting bigots. I think you would probably pass the interview with flying colours.

You overlook one crucial point Mr. Oranjepan. By ...

2009-11-28T06:07:17.363-08:00

You overlook one crucial point Mr. Oranjepan. By the way, did that slave ever contact you by email? How did that go? And would you like to know why you were rebuffed? I saw the whole thing, she is my girl, and the reason she turned you down is because she sensed you wanted sex and not discussion, and you did not offer to participate in the ritual. You'll never know what you missed. Those Gorean slavegirls are pretty nice aren't they? You should meet one in real life. It's even better.

So, Marty is GW and GW is Marty? Hmm, okay, well m...

2009-11-28T06:04:26.503-08:00

So, Marty is GW and GW is Marty? Hmm, okay, well mental issues and split personalities ala schizophrenia aside Marty/GW.
My interaction with you is done. You are a hateful creature whose goal in life seems to be eradication of those mortals lessor than yourself or your standards.

I have no time for ignorant bigots whose stated purpose is to have a white's only utopia in a theocratic state. Oh and Mr Bigot? I am Canadian so I will not comment on U. S. immigration affairs although I've observed that most immigrants even the so-called illegal ones seem to contribute more to American society than "citizens" even with the amount of hype about the alleged costs and burdens of "illegal" immigration.

Your political ideology is scary and intolerant. It leaves no room for basic human kindnesses and I pity you. You are truly a card carrying member of a sad and hateful group of human beings that have the collective intelligence of a group of lobotomized houseflies.

All you know is hate....too bad eh?

What I display is not bile but truth, Mr. Trent. ...

2009-11-28T06:03:15.633-08:00

What I display is not bile but truth, Mr. Trent.

Truth is easy to digest once one becomes accustomed to it.

Take immigration for instance. Amnesty is a popular leftist issue in this country.

I am also a supporter of total amnesty for all undocumented American residents now living in the country; I am also for completely open borders.

The undocumented Americans are exactly the people we want here, people brave enough to wade rivers and cross deserts, brave enough to put liberty over tyranny, brave enough to act to improve their lives.

Unlike so many I do not see these people as a drain on our economy, I see them as one of the more stable forces now affecting us.

My view on open borders comes from my Democratic-Republican philosophy. Our constitution guarantees us three basic rights, the right to liberty, the right security in person and papers, and the right to own property. Only through the abolition of these three rights can free men be reduced to slaves or serfs.

The right to liberty is the right to go freely where one pleases, it is a right imbued by God and Nature, which granted us two feet, the muscles to move them, and hands to supply the fuel to the muscles. The whole earth is our domain, for each and every one of us. We should be free to go where the work is without fear of imprisonment and without having to risk our lives to get there.

I don't know on what grounds the left supports these same issues, but I am interested to hear. Can you enlighten me, Mr. Trent? Or perhaps can you, Mr. Brody, with your access to the halls of sacred power in Washington? Why does the left support open borders and amnesty?

_guffaws_ Marty, either you're lying or you&#...

2009-11-28T05:59:00.962-08:00

_guffaws_

Marty, either you're lying or you've been spammed.

_checks anti-virus system_

You're very sensitive to criticism if you don't mind me saying so, but you're among potential friends, so there's no need to be (so) defensive and put us off.

I don't see why you're afraid of being honest about any opinions or feelings you have - we're here to listen and offer a supportive atmosphere even if that means disagreeing in a rigorous manner.

We're all adults (at least I think so - monkey years work a bit differently, so I get confused sometimes) and I'm sure we can all behave like we're all growed up.

I'm glad you see your life as full and complet...

2009-11-28T05:52:37.542-08:00

I'm glad you see your life as full and complete. I'm not wholly surprised either. Self satisfaction and bigotry do tend to fill one up.

What a shame some spills out when you turn a corner. But bile is every refilling, and you display plenty of that. May I suggest a good indigestion remedy? Dyspepsia as well will be hard to bear.

I am less than impressed with your claims of an ad...

2009-11-28T05:42:37.150-08:00

I am less than impressed with your claims of an advanced world view Mr. Brody, for I know people such as yourself to be corporate shills fronting for mercantilists. You are allowed to publish only what pleases your Master.

Make any other claim and I will seriously doubt your credibility.

You cover one side of a two sided coin, and that coin is a paper coin, fiat, that presents the public with two apparent choices with one goal: subjugation of the people to the state.

You argue on your own authority; you try to use your credentials as a passport to scoring argumentative points- that is a logical fallacy and does not fly with me.

Tell me, name me one serious piece of investigative journalism you have participated in. What risks did you take? What did you expose? I don't know you either, it is entirely possible you have some body of work I would enjoy.

On the other hand, your inability to allow me any sort of dignity is indicative of the platform your world view is built on. Like Mr. Trent you see yourself in the whole world around you; you frame your perceptions in your own failures and lack of courage and ambition.

I have compassion in adequate measure. I do not suffer fools though, and there are many on this blog who are foolish. I save my compassion for the hungry and the weak, not the well fed fool who impresses himself with weak arguments and self congratulations.

So think of me what you will, my life is full, complete, my vision clear. I have a purpose, I have accomplishment, and I have intent to carry forward my vision and purpose and add to my accomplishment.

The defamatory remarks you and Mr. Trent make regarding me do not affect me at all. I am unattached. You, and Mr. Trent, are attached. The purpose of my several personas here was to show different points of view that are usually not accepted coming from one person. Once I even had Mr. Oranjepan trying to privately email me for some hot cyber sex.

Now, what is it you wish to discuss, what real issue of importance, that you can discuss without attacking me?

How do you feel about immigration? It is an important issue with me and I do more than discuss it, I back my point of view with money I have earned through my hard work. What have you personally done to affect the deplorable state of US immigration laws?

Returning gradually to the subject of politics I d...

2009-11-28T05:42:12.763-08:00

Returning gradually to the subject of politics I do recall further back that 'GW' promised to offer some personal definitions to work with.

Since the concept of 'ownership' is at the heart of my understanding of socialism and Marty's understanding of social relationships too, perhaps we could investigate this concept a bit more deeply.

Is Marty a socialist, or are there more than one form of possible 'ownership' structure?

As I said Tim, the worst kind of bigot is always a...

2009-11-28T05:13:06.411-08:00

As I said Tim, the worst kind of bigot is always an ignorant one.

OK GW, As a 30 year veteran of the Press Corps, the last 12 of which I have been covering both The White House & the Hill, I have a little bit more of a world view than you do. I also have a much better understanding of the realities of the American political process as I observe it daily.
Now, you are correct that I do not know you. That is fact. It is however also fact that I have dealt with Americans that espouse the same exact type of vitriolic diatribe that you have expressed here in this comments thread.
In fact, I just recently covered another event on Capitol Hill regrading some the views I see that you adhere to.

Your very manner of presenting yourself is mean-spirited, demeaning to others, close minded, and well within the accepted parameters for the label of bigot.

Do not dare to attempt to challenge me with empty rhetoric sir, its not gonna a play with this reporter. I've had vastly more important folk than you try to dazzle me with bullshit including the now former 43rd President of the United States whom I've interviewed more than once.

My advice to you, is that you need to learn to be more charitable and human. As apparently your deficit is a lack of human compassion and understanding prompted in part, by I am almost certain, your extensive ignorance of the world.

Ah, so Marty and GW are the same intemperate poste...

2009-11-28T05:12:19.208-08:00

Ah, so Marty and GW are the same intemperate poster then. Interesting. Well, both are a major irrelevance.