The 14 Worst Corporatations

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Angelica,

I'll call your attention to another conversation we once had:









I'd invite you to consider this again in the context of everything I've ever said about force.

I have to run. I'll see you all soon.

I'm not interested in past secret code messages, now.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

this is what I see: You withheld information regarding the potency of the weapon you carry. Information that could have cleared up what you knew to be a misunderstanding. Now you apparently are wielding this circumstance as a way to point to faulty logic on my part and so on. I reject that outrightly.

Angelica, none of your logic has been faulty in regards to this issue. That is not what I'm saying here.

If you have ideas how I "should" think, that's about you. I think and do what is right for me.

As you should.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Angelica, none of your logic has been faulty in regards to this issue. That is not what I'm saying here.

Pardon me. Assumptions.

edit: rather: You withheld information regarding the potency of the weapon you carry. Information that could have cleared up what you knew to be a misunderstanding. Now you apparently are wielding this circumstance as a way to point to faulty assumptions on my part. I reject that outrightly.

and you said: "But not nearly as interesting as before you started looking at it logically as you have now".

By this it certainly sounds as though you are implying that earlier I was not being logical, hence it sounds like you are critiquing my logic. Which, also I reject. Particularly when it was equally due to your complicity that this situation was perpetuated. I don't accept it being passed off on me.

Abookamongstthemany

angelica wrote:

Nice try, you answered that post yesterday! It sounds like some kind of acquiescence to my will (;)) that you drop out of sight for a day while you formulate your answer. But I'm sure you'll have a "valid reason" for that.

Yep, he needed a breather. *Awaits 'valid reason'.*

angelica

Okay, farfromglorified, this is from our "gun past":

From: "Petitions To Reverse Smoking Ban In The States On Moving Train":

farfromglorified wrote:

angelica wrote:

If you shoot that mugger with your gun, and you are asked to own your accountability for taking a life, are you going to use this argument as your defence?

...
If I shoot a mugger I'm fully responsible for his death, and that's fine by me if I felt threatened by that mugger.

It is comments such as this that set the framework that have/had me believing you feel it is quite justifiable to shoot someone in defense of the self, when feeling threatened. Such comments set the stage for my "assumptions".

farfromglorified

Angelica,

Please examine your own question:

"If you shoot that mugger with your gun, and you are asked to own your accountability for taking a life, are you going to use this argument as your defence?"

You're not asking me would you shoot a mugger?

You're asking me if you shoot a mugger, will you own up to your accountability?

To which I say yes, I am accountable and I'm perfectly fine with admitting it and will not feel my actions are unjust.

I've said numerous times that self-defense is an acceptable reason for violence. But self-defense and the absolution of fear are two different things.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Angelica,

Please examine your own question:

"If you shoot that mugger with your gun, and you are asked to own your accountability for taking a life, are you going to use this argument as your defence?"

You're not asking me would you shoot a mugger?

You're asking me if you shoot a mugger, will you own up to your accountability?

To which I say yes, I am accountable and I'm perfectly fine with admitting it and will not feel my actions are unjust.

I've said numerous times that self-defense is an acceptable reason for violence. But self-defense and the absolution of fear are two different things.

I was showing my understanding of what you said, and how your words provided a framework for my understanding of the purposes of your gun. Coming from a person who I was told owned and carried a gun. As I check back on your words in hindsight given new information, I see a different picture.

farfromglorified

El_Kabong wrote:

no, it did't. it is not MY system. i believe in taxing for the public good (but not a huge amount like the UK used to do)

But that's what we're doing today. You should have realized by now that "public good" is subjective. Your "public good" is no more valid than Dick Cheney's "public good" or Jerry Falwell's "public good". You've destroyed any objective standards by which to measure "public good" since you've rendered the concepts of life, freedom, will and choice meaningless.

no, they didn't...they fed our soldiers spoiled food, gave them dirty water, overcharged and committed fraud where they thought they could get away w/ it...to me, that's not 'a good job' and are you saying you couldn't do a better job than that??

Actually, no. I'd have no idea how to go about doing what Halliburton does.

you do?? i must have missed you posting the positives to the tax system

You also missed my posts lamenting wasted tax dollars. I rarely discuss the positive or negative ends of the tax system. It is the negative means of the tax system that I lament. I acknowledge the positive means all the time. I've told you here dozens of times that if you (and/or anyone else) wish to pay taxes that you should be entirely free to do so.

yes, as in i refuse to call their work a 'great job' given their abuses (feeding our troops spoiled food and if it's rejected take it to the next base and hope they don't notice, giving them dirty water, the overcharges and fraud...) get it? if get an A on exams but i cheated on most of them, did i do a 'great job'? no, at least not to me

But Halliburton didn't cheat on most of them. They got F's on some of them. But for the most part, they did the job they were contracted to do and did it well.

ok, i must have missed that thread, too, where you said these things.

I link to one of those within this thread, I believe.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

I was showing my understanding of what you said, and how your words provided a framework for my understanding of the purposes of your gun. Coming from a person who I was told owned and carried a gun. As I check back on your words in hindsight given new information, I see a different picture.

That is fair.

Got your e-mail, btw. Lots of interesting stuff in there. I have to take care of an overdue response here and some more work but I'll get back to you soon.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

That is fair.

Got your e-mail, btw. Lots of interesting stuff in there. I have to take care of an overdue response here and some more work but I'll get back to you soon.

I look forward to any response you come up with. Take your time.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

You said what ever is lost should be returned to you instead of punishmnet by imprisonment.

Not "instead". You don't work "instead" of being a slave. You don't make love "instead" of being raped.

Justice is the process of treating men as they are. This is how you get whatever is lost returned to you. A man who steals $50 from you is a debtor to you. A debtor deserves no money until his debts are repayed. A man who rapes you is a violator of you. A violator deserves no further opportunity to violate. A person who kills your brother is a murderer. A murderer deserves nothing more to murder. However, all these men are still human beings and human beings still deserve freedom. It is unjust to pretend that a thief, a rapist, or a murderer are not still people.

A prison sentence cannot repay your $50.

A lashing cannot restore your virginity.

A gas chamber cannot restore a life lost.

I don't think in many cases, it can be returned so there has to another method of punishment in place.

Justice is not about punishment -- it is about retribution. They are very similar, but not equal. Punishment is a one-way street. Retribution is a two-way street. Those who believe in pure punishment deny the reality that all functions of justice have two halves. Criminals believe in punishment. Just men believe in retribution.

They should be paid for what they accomplished and punished for the crimes they have commited (fraud). Then their track record should speak for itself.

Ok.

I didn't mean that any knwledge tranfered from me to the student was negated...I meant my teaching job should be negated because of my criminal actions.

Ok.

At least the ones causing the havoc within society are not allowed to continue doing such. Chaos for a few that choose to be violent or chaos for all? I think the answer is clear.

You don't think putting 2,000,000 people in concrete human zoos is chaos??? You don't think an army of armed soldiers running around in fancy cars with bright lights and big guns is chaos???

Chaos is only chaotic to the people who suffer from it. Please go ask your inmates about chaos.

Violence happens when people are pitted against each other and believe there is no other option than to harm. To eliminate violence you must enhance choice, not diminish it.

How can value almost always be returned and what will ensure that it is not taken again?

Justice is never about preventing future crime. Such a system of "justice" will become no better than the criminals it punishes. Justice is about dealing with present crimes, not future crimes.

Punishment isn't supposed to be all rosy, I wouldn't recommend engaging in violent crimes. There is a cause and effect to everything.

Of course! The "cause and effect" you speak of is what both crime and justice are all about. But you cannot change cause by effect. You cannot eliminate the cause of violence by punishing it after violence happens. Justice happens not only in the society's response to the criminal, but in the society's response to itself and its own accountability.

You are not a slave forced to do anything within the borders of any country. You consent by being here and participating in what it is you claim to hate.

I participate only in what I claim to love. And that is life. Your system has given me a choice between my life and my mind without understanding that those two things are directly linked. The society that preceded yours once gave slaves a choice between their lives and their bodies without understanding that those two things are directly linked.

You present me with the choice of a drunken teenager: "put out or get out". Those are your terms, and you resort to them everytime. As long as the force aimed at me requires those terms, I will acquiesce to them. But do not pretend that the choice is "enlightened" or in the "public good". And do not pretend that I do what I do for anyone other than myself. I put out, but I do so to live my life for the same reason anyone pays a ransom. I'm simply here to say that you do not own my life, and to request that you stop demanding a ransom on it.

No, in a truly functioning democracy the people decide. We need to denounce laws that violate human rights and I know I do.

Do you not realize that this is what you are supporting:

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/dogs2.jpg

This is the world of the "public good". This is the world of "justice". This the world where cause and effect are not linked. You may damn such a world out of one side of your mouth, but you support it with the other.

You can change laws. Good luck with ridding the world of greed.

I have no interest in "ridding the world of greed". I have an interest in ridding my own life of greed. This means not being greedy and not supporting greed with my labor or my money.

Money buys power and influence.

Then stop selling it. Stop putting your power, your influence, on the open market. That is what you sell to the IRS every year. That is what you're selling to the Diebolds of this world. That is what they're buying with your money.

Those without are always going to need certain laws protecting them from this.

The law cannot protect them. It is only actions that protect them. Their own and ours. Nothing I'm proposing precludes such action. It only precludes them from slaughtering or caging human beings in the name of fear.

What could a penniless person do to stop either?

Become not-penniless, for one. Become not-employed by such people, for another. Educate, for a third. Picket, for a fourth. March, for a sixth. Speak out, for a seventh.

I agree. but I don't agree that we shouldn't have laws that imprison those who wish to take away anothers human rights. If you choose that path you give up you own human rights.

You cannot "give up" a human right. That is the fallacy of your system, that is what makes it so cold and so disturbing.

Here we pay taxes which are supposed to benefit society. There is no benefit in rape to a society only harm...probably the reason no country worth living in forces rape on it's public or makes it legal to rape another.

There is benefit in rape -- benefit to the rapist. Understand? Your system of "justice" cannot negate that benefit. A true system of justice recognize that the benefit achieved by the rapist was delivered via corrupt means which also generate the much greater cost to the victim. Similarly, the beneficial ends of your tax system do not justify their corrupt means. A theif who steals from the rich to give to the poor is still a thief, and vice versa.

democracy = majority of the people's choices rule. I believe in democracy, I don't believe we are living up to our democracy though.

You are living up to your democracy. As a wise man once said about this democracy:

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

and he also said this:

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power"

Those are the tenants your democracy has forgotten in exchange for subjective rights, false wealth, false freedom and false security.

such as?

Such as laws that require one man to fund society and another to live off of it, based on nothing more than the measure of a man's subjective need. Such as laws that allow one man to live free, but another to live in chains based on nothing more than the measure of some mens' subjective fear. Such as laws that once allowed one man to own another based on nothing more than the measure of one man's subjective perception of the other's appearance.

In an overall sense people are not helpless. But in certain situations involving power people can become helpless.

YES!!! Now the important question becomes: what is the root of that power?

what do you suggest we send them all to Exile Island?

That's an option, certainly. A bit odd, but I'm cool with that.

I don't see how your vision will work properly.

What do you mean by "properly"?

No, it's not alright to let prisoners be abused.

It's too late. You've already abused him by turning him into a "prisoner".

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

angelica wrote:

If you are not deliberately giving someone a false impression of something, and they get a false impression, the misunderstanding is entirely on them. If you are deliberately giving someone a false imression and they are getting a false impression, the "misunderstanding" is entirely on you.

A misundertanding is never entirely on either side. It is entirely on both sides

What I am saying is if you are deliberately choosing to deceive someone by consciously giving a false impression and the other person gets a false impression. The accountability for the deceit is entirely on the person deceiving.

At the same time, if one is living their life and communicating as usual and another party "hears" a false impression or one of deceit where one was not intended, nor spoken, the miscommunication is on the person who "heard" a false impression. One is not responsible for deceit that was not intended nor spoken.