[Lord Dave]

A bear is not subject to any laws. A bear is free.

Sure, the bear has rivals ... but that isn't the same thing. A King has rivals who may conquer his empire and kill him. Doesn't make the king subjugated.

Thank you, Thork, for answering the question instead of fighting the troll.


So freedom means subject to no laws?  Does that mean you, as a human, will not be free unless you live in a place where there is no human civilization?

[Roundy]

Hardly.

Let’s go through your list:

First, denigrate the presenter by any means possible

From the banlist:

Action80   Repeated personal attacks. ~junker

Check.

Second. label the communication as false

Quit typing incorrect information and falsehoods.

Check.

Finally, if all else fails, demand harsh consequences be inflicted because the communication must be false

Kind of like your creepy list you were keeping or reporting me for asking that a detailed thread be split to the appropriate forum.

Yup. Definitely sounds like you.

Give him a break; he's only doing what his hero Donald Trump does and projecting his many inadequacies on the people he interacts with.

It can happen to any delusional moron, really.

[Dr David Thork]

So freedom means subject to no laws?  Does that mean you, as a human, will not be free unless you live in a place where there is no human civilization?

I live in a civilisation and like everyone else, I trade a little liberty for security. The fact I can't go about killing whomever I like, is a restriction on my freedoms, but also reduces the likelihood that someone will try to kill me. A bear on the other hand, can kill other bears at it likes.

[AATW]

I knew there would one day be a thread that Thork is right in.
What a time to be alive.

[Action80]

So freedom means subject to no laws?  Does that mean you, as a human, will not be free unless you live in a place where there is no human civilization?

Freedom means subject to the laws of nature or Providence.

Freedom means you understand that living by that creed demands you allow others to do the same on an individual basis.

Acting against this creed is what gets you morans like Fidel Turdeau.

[Lord Dave]

So freedom means subject to no laws?  Does that mean you, as a human, will not be free unless you live in a place where there is no human civilization?

Freedom means subject to the laws of nature or Providence.

Freedom means you understand that living by that creed demands you allow others to do the same on an individual basis.

Acting against this creed is what gets you morans like Fidel Turdeau.

But how do you reconcile two individuals whose 'freedoms' harm the other?

Law of nature is survival of the fittest.  Might makes right.  Which means the weak are oppressed and killed for the benefit of the strong.

[Action80]

So freedom means subject to no laws?  Does that mean you, as a human, will not be free unless you live in a place where there is no human civilization?

Freedom means subject to the laws of nature or Providence.

Freedom means you understand that living by that creed demands you allow others to do the same on an individual basis.

Acting against this creed is what gets you morans like Fidel Turdeau.

But how do you reconcile two individuals whose 'freedoms' harm the other?

I am under the impression what I wrote already addresses your question: "Freedom means you understand that living by that creed demands you allow others to do the same on an individual basis."

Law of nature is survival of the fittest.  Might makes right.  Which means the weak are oppressed and killed for the benefit of the strong.

Only a fascist dictator like Fidel Turdeau lives by the idea that survival of the fittest is the law of nature, although I am not surprised you hold it to be correct also, as it leads to what you ultimately want.

But even insects and animals understand that current weakness is more often worthy of protection than not and sheer might also provides safety.

Why do you insist on such a haphazard and low level effort when examining these concepts?

Laws of nature and Providence have nothing to do with BS like survival of the fittest. People who follow these laws as they apply to humanity realize everyone is running a race and demand the race be conducted under civilized rules.

[Lord Dave]

So freedom means subject to no laws?  Does that mean you, as a human, will not be free unless you live in a place where there is no human civilization?

Freedom means subject to the laws of nature or Providence.

Freedom means you understand that living by that creed demands you allow others to do the same on an individual basis.

Acting against this creed is what gets you morans like Fidel Turdeau.

But how do you reconcile two individuals whose 'freedoms' harm the other?

I am under the impression what I wrote already addresses your question: "Freedom means you understand that living by that creed demands you allow others to do the same on an individual basis."

And whose freedom is allowed?
Lets say I wanna sleep on a park bench at night because I'm homeless.
Lets say you want to sit on it.  Benches are made for sitting, not sleeping after all.
You are both free to use the bench but who gets it?  Should it be the sleeping hobo since he was there first?  Should it be you because you want to use it for sitting, what its meant for?

Law of nature is survival of the fittest.  Might makes right.  Which means the weak are oppressed and killed for the benefit of the strong.

Only a fascist dictator like Fidel Turdeau lives by the idea that survival of the fittest is the law of nature, although I am not surprised you hold it to be correct also, as it leads to what you ultimately want.

O.o that... Thst is the law of nature tho.  What law of nature were you taught?

But even insects and animals understand that current weakness is more often worthy of protection than not and sheer might also provides safety.

Huh?  Most weak animals are eaten by predators.  Sick, old, or injured rabbits are often easy prey for predators.  Ants don't go around saving a sick ant from a spider.
Some pack animals will protect their own.  And parents will protect their young.  But thats about it...

Laws of nature and Providence have nothing to do with BS like survival of the fittest. People who follow these laws as they apply to humanity realize everyone is running a race and demand the race be conducted under civilized rules.

Yeah... Civilization law is not natural law. 
You seem to think the laws of nature are.... Human civilization laws.

[Action80]

So freedom means subject to no laws?  Does that mean you, as a human, will not be free unless you live in a place where there is no human civilization?

Freedom means subject to the laws of nature or Providence.

Freedom means you understand that living by that creed demands you allow others to do the same on an individual basis.

Acting against this creed is what gets you morans like Fidel Turdeau.

But how do you reconcile two individuals whose 'freedoms' harm the other?

I am under the impression what I wrote already addresses your question: "Freedom means you understand that living by that creed demands you allow others to do the same on an individual basis."

And whose freedom is allowed?

Everyone.

Lets say I wanna sleep on a park bench at night because I'm homeless.

Okay.

Lets say you want to sit on it.  Benches are made for sitting, not sleeping after all.
You are both free to use the bench but who gets it?  Should it be the sleeping hobo since he was there first?  Should it be you because you want to use it for sitting, what its meant for?

A sane, sober, and normal person recognizes when a seat is occupied and doesn't consider the fact a particular person is occupying the seat as an infringement on freedom.

Law of nature is survival of the fittest.  Might makes right.  Which means the weak are oppressed and killed for the benefit of the strong.

Only a fascist dictator like Fidel Turdeau lives by the idea that survival of the fittest is the law of nature, although I am not surprised you hold it to be correct also, as it leads to what you ultimately want.

O.o that... Thst is the law of nature tho.  What law of nature were you taught?

That isn't the law of nature.

If it was, no offspring would ever survive.

But even insects and animals understand that current weakness is more often worthy of protection than not and sheer might also provides safety.

Huh?  Most weak animals are eaten by predators.  Sick, old, or injured rabbits are often easy prey for predators.  Ants don't go around saving a sick ant from a spider.
Some pack animals will protect their own.  And parents will protect their young.  But thats about it...

So, you do get it.

Just really don't want to admit it for whatever reason.

Laws of nature and Providence have nothing to do with BS like survival of the fittest. People who follow these laws as they apply to humanity realize everyone is running a race and demand the race be conducted under civilized rules.

Yeah... Civilization law is not natural law. 
You seem to think the laws of nature are.... Human civilization laws.

No, I seem to think that nature is more than just an examination of what is mundane.

You do too, and it seems you're just on the troll.

Bu bye.

[Lord Dave]

Lets say you want to sit on it.  Benches are made for sitting, not sleeping after all.
You are both free to use the bench but who gets it?  Should it be the sleeping hobo since he was there first?  Should it be you because you want to use it for sitting, what its meant for?

A sane, sober, and normal person recognizes when a seat is occupied and doesn't consider the fact a particular person is occupying the seat as an infringement on freedom.

It was a rather simple example but it does limit your freedom to sit where you want.
So in your view, being able to sit where you want isn't freedom?  Because the civil rights movement would disagree.

Law of nature is survival of the fittest.  Might makes right.  Which means the weak are oppressed and killed for the benefit of the strong.

Only a fascist dictator like Fidel Turdeau lives by the idea that survival of the fittest is the law of nature, although I am not surprised you hold it to be correct also, as it leads to what you ultimately want.

O.o that... Thst is the law of nature tho.  What law of nature were you taught?

That isn't the law of nature.

If it was, no offspring would ever survive.
[/Quote]
Many do not.  For example, male lions are known to kill their sons if said son challenges them for ownership of the pride.
Most insects drop their eggs and fly off or die.  It is by sheer numbers that some survive.
Sharks eat eachother in the womb (well, the birth canal technically) until only two remain.
Sea turtles lay eggs on the beach then leave.
Bass lay eggs up stream then leave them.

But even insects and animals understand that current weakness is more often worthy of protection than not and sheer might also provides safety.

Huh?  Most weak animals are eaten by predators.  Sick, old, or injured rabbits are often easy prey for predators.  Ants don't go around saving a sick ant from a spider.
Some pack animals will protect their own.  And parents will protect their young.  But thats about it...

So, you do get it.

Just really don't want to admit it for whatever reason.

What, protect your own?  Because thats not the law of nature.  Its the law of society.

Laws of nature and Providence have nothing to do with BS like survival of the fittest. People who follow these laws as they apply to humanity realize everyone is running a race and demand the race be conducted under civilized rules.

Yeah... Civilization law is not natural law. 
You seem to think the laws of nature are.... Human civilization laws.

No, I seem to think that nature is more than just an examination of what is mundane.

You do too, and it seems you're just on the troll.

Bu bye.

Oh, you're leaving the thread? 
Oh good.  Bye.

[Rama Set]

The bench example is not someone’s right being limited but rather their ability at a particular moment in time. It’s the same thing with the convoy protests happening in Canada: many people are confusing the right to assemble with the right to assemble whenever, wherever and however they want.

[Iceman]

https://www.blogto.com/city/2022/02/man-pot-trucker-convoy-leave-ottawa/

 [comically small] Pot and ladle guy gets it.

[Action80]

The bench example is not someone’s right being limited but rather their ability at a particular moment in time. It’s the same thing with the convoy protests happening in Canada: many people are confusing the right to assemble with the right to assemble whenever, wherever and however they want.

Is it your opinion people should have the right to assemble whenever they want, wherever they want, and however they want?

Or only certain people should have that right?

[Rama Set]

The bench example is not someone’s right being limited but rather their ability at a particular moment in time. It’s the same thing with the convoy protests happening in Canada: many people are confusing the right to assemble with the right to assemble whenever, wherever and however they want.

Is it your opinion people should have the right to assemble whenever they want, wherever they want, and however they want?

Or only certain people should have that right?

I don’t think anyone has or should have the unlimited right to assemble at a time, place and manner of their choosing. It should always be weighed against the public peace, as the judge did who issued the injunction against horn honking.

[Action80]

The bench example is not someone’s right being limited but rather their ability at a particular moment in time. It’s the same thing with the convoy protests happening in Canada: many people are confusing the right to assemble with the right to assemble whenever, wherever and however they want.

Is it your opinion people should have the right to assemble whenever they want, wherever they want, and however they want?

Or only certain people should have that right?

I don’t think anyone has or should have the unlimited right to assemble at a time, place and manner of their choosing. It should always be weighed against the public peace, as the judge did who issued the injunction against horn honking.

Sure.

I am sure the people who were pissed at the horn honking was the straw that caused Fidel Turdeau to flip out and label the Jewish MP a supporter of Swastikas.

LMMFAO!

So, are you in support of forced assembly?

[Lord Dave]

Remember when liberals blocked a major highway in texas to protest something and everyone said they should be run over for blocking a road?

Good times.

[Rama Set]

The bench example is not someone’s right being limited but rather their ability at a particular moment in time. It’s the same thing with the convoy protests happening in Canada: many people are confusing the right to assemble with the right to assemble whenever, wherever and however they want.

Is it your opinion people should have the right to assemble whenever they want, wherever they want, and however they want?

Or only certain people should have that right?

I don’t think anyone has or should have the unlimited right to assemble at a time, place and manner of their choosing. It should always be weighed against the public peace, as the judge did who issued the injunction against horn honking.

Sure.

I am sure the people who were pissed at the horn honking was the straw that caused Fidel Turdeau to flip out and label the Jewish MP a supporter of Swastikas.

Governance of the protest in Ottawa has been awful at every level.

So, are you in support of forced assembly?

I’m not sure what you mean by that. An example would help.

[Action80]

Remember when liberals blocked a major highway in texas to protest something and everyone said they should be run over for blocking a road?

Good times.

Yeah, everyone said something...

What were they protesting again?

Oh yeah, now I remember.

This particular group of liberals. as you put it, seemed to be protesting emergency vehicles driving to pick up sick and elderly persons.

[Action80]

The bench example is not someone’s right being limited but rather their ability at a particular moment in time. It’s the same thing with the convoy protests happening in Canada: many people are confusing the right to assemble with the right to assemble whenever, wherever and however they want.

Is it your opinion people should have the right to assemble whenever they want, wherever they want, and however they want?

Or only certain people should have that right?

I don’t think anyone has or should have the unlimited right to assemble at a time, place and manner of their choosing. It should always be weighed against the public peace, as the judge did who issued the injunction against horn honking.

Sure.

I am sure the people who were pissed at the horn honking was the straw that caused Fidel Turdeau to flip out and label the Jewish MP a supporter of Swastikas.

Governance of the protest in Ottawa has been awful at every level.

So, are you in support of forced assembly?

I’m not sure what you mean by that. An example would help.

Well, let us take an example of persons assembling in the town square to make public statements critical of the national leader.

The polizei make their presence known, arrest the persons gathered, forcing them to reassemble in a different location.

[Rama Set]

Without a reason for the relocation it wouldn’t seem just, no.