My “true colors” are revealed by joking statements?
Brainpolice: Cigarettes are a symbol of the fire of the mind, therefore you are evil if you do not smoke.
Hahaha. Are you a meestik?!
I stopped smoking just to become evil.
Are you going to answer my two questions I have referred to 3 times now?
No, I don’t interact with intellectually dishonest half-trolls.
Well you did a few hours ago, which means your statement is dishonest.
So are you going to reply to the questions you keep evading? And if not, why do you continue to evade them?
Nope, not a meeestik, and don’t wear leeepstik. But I do think that if Klemm smokes, it is morally permissible for him to break into the cabin, but if he doesn’t smoke, Tom should put him to death as punishment in the name of property rights - and because he doesn’t represent the fire of the mind.
Hitting yourself in the face over and over again is not a good sign.
What did I say I would do? You can read almost all my posts and find the answer to what I would do.
And really doesn’t matter what Klemm thinks. It’s what Tom thinks. It doesn’t matter what you think or I think (even though I’ve given you what I think). It matters what Tom thinks. Klemm bubble.
statement
And Brainpolice collapses. Can’t answer a question. Not surprising.
It doesn’t matter what either Klemm or Tom think, as I’ve been telling you for pages - you are being presented with a philosophical question in which you are expected to provide a rational argument as to whether or not it is morally permissible Klemm to break into the cabin, and the fact that you keep avoiding this and simply appealing to the authority of Tom and insisting that it’s all about Tom is begging the question. You’re not being asked what Tom can or cannot do, you’re being asked what it is morally permissible for Klemm to do via rational argumentaton (not an appeal to the what either Tom or Klemm think). Stop forcing me to be a broken record over your lack of comprehension. And you’re becoming absurd and trollish now.
I’ve given you my answer, but it doesn’t matter what I think, I’m not Tom.
Just cause you don’t defend liberty doesn’t mean I’m a troll in an Austrian Ec. Forum.
BP: No, I don’t interact with intellectually dishonest half-trolls.
Lies! I’ve been watching you do it for pages upon pages. Maybe what you meant to know is that you should know better than to interact with libertrollians?
I don’t “don’t defend liberty”, that’s a non-sequitor.
No, what makes your behavior absurd and trollish are things like totally ignoring arguments and saying “statement” in response to them, engaging in an endless series of distracting non-sequitors (such as the talk about what people think) and repeatedly making off-the-cuff statements implying that I’m somehow against liberty when you aren’t even demonstrating a comprehension of what I’m saying. It’s hard to continue to take seriously over a period of time.
No it’s not. You can’t consider what Tom would do due to your lack of expanded knowledge of liberty.
You don’t comprehend what I’m saying. I’ve given my moral stance. But it’s not only about me. It’s also about Tom’s individual sovereignty. But you aren’t for that so. - shrugs -
This is incoherant. You’ve essentially just shifted the debate to never-never-land. I don’t lack the capacity to consider what Tom would do, I’ve been telling you ad nauseum that that isn’t the only question and that it’s a separate question from Klemm’s moral permissibility. Oh yes, you must have such an “expanded knowledge of liberty” that you aren’t even able to coherantly discuss the subject! Never mind that that I’ve been involved in libertarianism for nearly a decade now and have already transcended your type of position, which I once held myself - it’s not like I’m argueing from the perspective of someone who hasn’t already been familiarized with the cliche libertarian arguments.
These are disingenous statements that merely assume what you’ve yet to prove.
And that’s all it took…lol
What am I supposed to prove? That you showed another wasted post with no ideas to discuss and debate? I think that’s on your shoulders.
I’ve given my moral stance. But it’s Tom’s property so let’s ask Tom.
Since you’ve edited I’ve gone back.
Third sentence: Klemm bubble.
Fourth sentence: I’ve given you my moral stance. So I don’t know why you keep asking or talking about that.
Last sentence: Transcended into Communism I see you did.
yeah I remember responding to this post of yours LS some time back with an: exactly
eyebulge
What Tom thinks is irrelevant to answering the question at hand of Klemm’s moral permissibility. You are presupposing what you must prove, I.E. that the question reduces strictly to a matter of what Tom can do after the scenario occurs already. You’re also merely repeating the error of conflating that with the question at hand. We’ve already clarified this matter, yet you keep repeating the misunderstanding. Are you capable of dealing with abstract thought in discourse?
It isn’t a “Klemm bubble” to substantiate that the question of what it is morally permissible for Klemm to do DOES NOT hinge on whatever Tom happens to think (which would entail an absolutist theory of “the legitimacy of possession grants absolute decision-making power to the possessor” that you backed away from the implications of earlier in this thread), it requires a formal argument to explain pro or con whether or not it is permissible.
LMAO! Communism? You have no idea what you are talking about. Now you’re red-baiting? This is absurd. Congradulations, you just pegged an individualist anarchist as a communist based on your lack of comprehension. I bet you 50 bucks that you can’t even coherently define what most communists believe.