Power Independence Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley Page:    1  2  3  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Idea  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Mon May 6th, 2013 07:40 pm
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5998
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
1.
Character names connect to significant history
a. Main character is Josiah Warren, student
b. Teacher, trainer, crime prevention is Steven Andrews
c. Employer is

2.
Examples of how competition moves quality up and cost down.
a. Schooling is no longer institutionalized/centralized
b. productive, income earning, work is no longer a significant measure of time

3.
Inventions
a. Individual defensive immobilizing weapon
b. electric powered vehicles
c. electric generating devices

4.
Notes on current writing.
Mary arrives with a heavy jacket on, which is a solar power generator, or solar panel, and there are questions as to why someone is wearing so much in warm weather.

Reusable grocery bag is introduced into the story, while Mary is in the kitchen.

Mary interrupts the history lesson when arriving at the table with tea, steering the lesson back to the concept of power, or control, over mind into positive directions instead of the less competitive negative directions, and Steve bends back into The War on Falsehood.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon May 6th, 2013 10:24 pm
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
OK, so I am waiting on an appointment. I just had a question about the Defensive Device. Joe, if humans are good, why do humans need defensive devices to defend themselves from human molestation be it by robbery, rape, or just because some human is plain mean?

OK, now I am in trouble because I have work on my plate and have asked a question. I don't know if this is an appropriate place for such a question, but it jumped into my mind so I am splatting here on this page so Joe can circle it.

It is sunny today! It feels so good to have sun! :cool:

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue May 7th, 2013 01:59 pm
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
b. productive, income earning, work is no longer a significant measure of time

This sounds extremely arguable

I would say that with time work can only take more time eventually taking up all time so no time is wasted on damaging activities and everything one does is productive more than damaging in one way or another. There is no race to some ultimate deadline - is exactly the reason for it not to sit on one's hands and waste time. Nothing will ascend one except one oneself so there is no reason to wait for anything.

a. Schooling is no longer institutionalized/centralized

I don't think that this in particular visualizes the topic of competition good enough. Thing is that this stage on the way to something better is inevitable, meaning cannot be bypassed. Same as with religion in a way. And considering the state of society as of today I'd say institutionalized education will be required most assuredly to get through important problems humanity faces. In this light state's media propaganda is an imporatant instrument for such a goal. This instrument can do so much against drugs (including tobacco and alcohol), because the second reason for people becoming addicts is disinformation about drugs (first being availability as per usual - absolute ban for selling is mandatory as soon as possible). I think the subject of planned osolescence is more suited to on one side show competition going wrong way and on the other show industry specifics as competition leading to obvious benefits, but eventually made into counter-intuitive decision thanks to social parasites.

Last edited on Tue May 7th, 2013 02:02 pm by Jee-Host[gm]

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue May 7th, 2013 04:51 pm
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5998
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The concept of the book is such that my viewpoints on these questions (or arguments?) are explained through a story line.

The defensive weapon scenario plays out very well in my mind, as a story line, since the actual device already exists in the form of accurate perception.

Someone who is well aware of impending injury can avoid it entirely.

Along with the same device I want to illustrate in the Novel is the concept of a lie detector.

So the device in mind is a Cell Phone.

The Cell Phone records any confrontation a person may have with any other person.

Think in terms of a Duel.

There is a famous Duel in American History between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton.

There are many fictional Duels between Characters in Movies like The Outlaw Josey Wales.

Person A has time to realize that Person B will injure Person A, and Person A has the means to defend him, or her, self.

Person A is armed with a sharp knife, or a gun, or a sniper rifle, or a Drone, or a Suitcase Nuke, or an Intercontinental Balistic Missle with multple Warheads containing Dirty Bombs and a few Biological Weapons of Mass Destruction thrown in.

Person A uses the Cell Phone first, and the aggressor/defender with the Nuke is motionless for 1 hour.

The entire Duel is recorded and uploaded onto the Web, like one of those Dash Cams.

Like this:

Obey, without question

In every case where this is any future altercation, of any kind, whereby the combatants include one person who is using the new device, the event is recorded, uploaded, and insured.

I want to describe the uses of insurance too.

Insurance in this case is a competitive policy purchased by the insured so as to minimize the costs of insurance against attack by aggressor, whereby the aggressor may be wielding a sharp knife, gun, rocket, suitcase nuke, or those ICBMs.

You two do not think with my brain, so you have not traveled down the roads I travel down, in this type of thinking.

The insured, for example, may or may not reduce their own costs by agreeing to also have one of those chips implanted in a secret place, so that if the insured is captured by the Police, or by some Outlaw, and whisked away to some dungeon, Extraordinarily Rendered, or otherwise captured, tortured, and then murdered, the competitive insurance provider can map your progress all along the way.

The concept with the book is to turn everything back right-side-up.

If you don't get it, then that just tells me I need to write the book, and if you read the book and you still want to argue, or ask questions, then that would mean you still don't get it.

That is OK by me.

I get it.

The concept of less work and more benefit is not something that inspires me to argue, it is merely a demonstrable fact, so why argue about it?

If we do not share the meanings of words, then there are ways to work toward sharing the meanings of words, like the word work, for example, as a test case: if we want to share the meaning of the word work, we can work to reach that goal.

If we don't want to reach that goal, then no amount of work expended in not reaching that goal will reach that goal.

Quote time (since no other means is available for me to work toward understanding the meaning of the words quoted, as far as I know):

I would say that with time work can only take more time eventually taking up all time so no time is wasted on damaging activities and everything one does is productive more than damaging in one way or another. There is no race to some ultimate deadline - is exactly the reason for it not to sit on one's hands and waste time. Nothing will ascend one except one oneself so there is no reason to wait for anything.
I don't know who spoke about waiting, or racing to meet an ultimate deadline, so this argument that is going on, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with me.

I was speaking about a book, and in the book I was speaking about the condition of life where many people are working very hard for most of their lives, and the benefits of their work are transferred to people who then use those benefits to steal more benefits from those who do that work, now, and in the book those transfers of those benefits are no longer being transferred in that way, so those who work productively get to keep their benefits for working productively, and that is accurately measurable as working less, and having more kept, controlled, used, employed, by those who work productively.

Where the subject turns into an argument appears to be contained in the words quoted. I can only guess.

My guess is that we have no way in which to communicate meanings of words to each other, for some reason.

Perhaps a good start would be to start with the meaning of the words Productive Work.

I can begin by saying that the meaning I intend to convey with the words Productive Work is such that a person begins the day with X amount of useful things and ends the day with X + Y amount of useful things.

Ending the day with X - Y useful things measures as a reduction in useful things for that day, and I'm not saying that there are no other things going on in that day, I'm just saying that X + Y is measurable as production for that day, and X - Y is not measurable as production for that day.

Some days can be spent consuming production in ways that are understood as investments; whereby the rate of production may increase dramatically, such as a day spent building a tool.

I do not argue. I see no point in it, and here we may be having more difficulty with the meanings of words. My use of the word ARGUE is a meaning that intends to convey the concept of one perspective intending to defeat another perspective without any concern for accurate measures of perception.

I don't know if my work that intends to build an agreeable meaning of words will bear fruit, but I have done my work in the words above, seeking that goal.

And considering the state of society as of today I'd say institutionalized education will be required most assuredly to get through important problems humanity faces.

I may have misspoke due to a perception of the need to be brief, and while I wrote the brief list of things to be worked into the book I thought about the competitive advantage of institutionalized learning centers, as complimentary additions along side of very competitive individual teachers working to teach individual students.

My first attempt at this book was a scene in which the main character meets one teacher, and I introduced another character in the same scene as that one teacher held a class with two students.

I believe that the following words are demonstrably accurate:

And considering the state of society as of today I'd say institutionalized education will be required most assuredly to get through important problems humanity faces.
For purposes of the book, and the goal I am working toward, the concept of acknowledging that demonstrably accurate perception above can be incorporated into the book, but I'm not sure, since the book has not been written yet, other than a few chapters that are now lost on an old hard drive.

I think the subject of planned osolescence is more suited to on one side show competition going wrong way and on the other show industry specifics as competition leading to obvious benefits, but eventually made into counter-intuitive decision thanks to social parasites.
A major theme in the book will be this concept of how monopoly (with such things as planned obsolescence) works, or did work, before Liberty Day, before the War on Falsehood was won. The book intends to include a History Teacher who explains to a modern day student, how things worked in Monopoly Power.

 


 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue May 7th, 2013 08:33 pm
  PM Quote Reply
5th Post
bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Josf, my question did not have to do with the validity of the device. I like the idea. Especially with the added insurance of trigger happy people being loaded on the internet.

But my question has to do with the premise that people are good. Why do we need a device if people are good. For that matter, why do we need guns, if people are good.

My question lies at the foundation of the goodness of humanity. Humanity has the propensity to be bad. That is why we need those devices. No one knows at what point they will do bad or how far they will go down that bad road to injure others.

A little of something sometimes ignites something unknown to a person. Or the influence of another bad person might ignite someone else to do bad. We, as humans, are capable of doing very evil things.

What if you and I had been born in a tribe of cannibals. Would we be cannibals too?

So, I like your device. But I want you to admit to me, that people are not really good, because if they were, we would have no need of this immobilization device, nor would we have the need for "trigger happy" insurance video.

Yes, I used the word admit. Imagine that. Do I get your gruff up? I want to win this one.

...

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue May 7th, 2013 11:28 pm
  PM Quote Reply
6th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5998
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
bear,

I may have coincidentally thought about the stark differences between Power Independence, or any Independence (without power I don't know how anything can be independent), for 1 individual compared to an entire species, or group, or Nation of People, or Family, or City, or County, or Company, or Business, or couple, or Church.

Note the difference, and then I will quote your question inspiring these words in reply.

Differences between:

1. Independent Individual

2. Independent Individuals

I had that rolling around in my mind when I read this:

Why do we need a device if people are good [?].
Which people?

Independent people are good, as they do not depend upon crime for a means of sustaining their lives.

Why do we need parents if kids are good?

Humanity has the propensity to be bad.
I may be an alien being born onto this planet since it seems as if I am the only individual capable of avoiding the same error everyone else appears to do routinely.

Why are good people being blamed for the actions of bad people?

What is this apparent need to collectively punish everyone for the bad things done by the few?

I don't have that routine working in my brain, so I can't answer the question myself. I can ask, and ask, and ask, and ask, and I can grow blue in the face, without ever having the answer offered to me; or do I merely fail to listen, or am I actually the source of the error?

Everyone is, in fact, responsible for the actions of a few people.

Joe, you are stupid, so the real question is: why are you incapable of realizing the fact that everyone is, in fact, responsible for the actions of a few people?

No one knows at what point they will do bad or how far they will go down that bad road to injure others.
I can demonstrate that the above sentence is false. A person paid a lot of money (power to purchase) for doing bad things will, with almost no exceptions, do bad things for that source of that power.

Is that not true?

We, as humans, are capable of doing very evil things.
Again, I do not have that routine going on in my mind, so that sentence to me is ambiguous, meaningless, or false, and I care not to know which, but I would like to know why someone thinks that everyone must be held responsible for the bad things done by a few people.

I have not tortured anyone for money yet, I have not mass murdered any large group of people for money yet, and it is past time for me to begin such a vocation, so for practical purposes, on that scale of evil, I can safely say, I am not capable of torturing people, and mass murdering people, to earn my way through the rest of my life.

What is the point of the sentence?

We, as humans, are capable of doing very evil things.
If I am pointing out how a very few people are being paid almost every kilowatt/hour of surplus power for lies, fraud, torture, and mass murder, and by counting the screams, and the bodies of the tortured and murdered, evil can be accurately measured, and you are then offering that sentence in reply, if that is the case here, then I see that sentence as being false.

We, as humans, are capable of doing very good things.

What is the point?

Blame everyone for both?

What if you and I had been born in a tribe of cannibals. Would we be cannibals too?
A case was made, in Equitable Commerce, accounting for that fact.

I agree, and I don't blame everyone for this unfortunate situation, what would be the point of blaming everyone for the actions of a few?

But I want you to admit to me, that people are not really good, because if they were, we would have no need of this immobilization device, nor would we have the need for "trigger happy" insurance video.
I can admit it, if I lie.

I won't lie.

I don't see the point in lying.

Trial by Jury was the Immobilizing Device that worked when it worked well enough to minimize crime, by paying crime nothing, in fact the idea was to make crime costly for the criminals.

I think the level of evil humans can be driven toward is certainly extreme when too many people allow themselves to be driven to an extreme level of evil, but even so, even under the worst conditions, as can be found in a copy of The Gulag Archipelago, and many other accounts, human beings can be known as being good even when they are being driven toward the worst evil.

If you feel the need to blame everyone for the actions of a few, go right ahead, it is what you choose to do, and it is not what I choose to do, because it is demonstrably false.

Yes, I used the word admit. Imagine that. Do I get your gruff up? I want to win this one.
This is an old, old, old, part of the road for me, repeated, and repeated, and repeated, and as yet it has not managed to wear a groove in my soul, so no, I do not blame everyone for the actions of a few, and it does not look like I ever will make that mistake.

What would be the goal if I were to make that error?

Allow the criminals to raise their pay?



Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed May 8th, 2013 12:24 am
  PM Quote Reply
7th Post
bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Sin is evil. Every individual sins.

But by the grace of God, there go I.

But by the grace of God, I was not born to a tribe of cannibals. If I had been, what would I be?

No Joe, you are not stupid.

When I was in Jr. High, I carved the name of a boy into the inside of my arm. I self-tortured. Is that not evil?

I have been mean to an animal before. Is that not evil?

I killed a red-winged black bird, for no reason. Was that not evil?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed May 8th, 2013 04:23 pm
  PM Quote Reply
8th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5998
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The point of the book can be summed up as:

Pay the legal criminals less, and they will be less powerful.

If I were to force you to choose between eating one child to save one child or, on the other hand, I eat both of them, while you watch, and then I do whatever else I want, then that is the extreme example I offer to  you, as I attempt to reply to your last reply.

This is my point.

You reply with some measure of some evil that you have done, which to me sounds like reasonable human error, or sin, or whatever words you want to use to describe what you want me to see.

My point is my point.

Your point is your point.

Your point points out bad things you did, bad things you did voluntarily, bad things you realize to be bad things now, and bad things you paid for, in your own way, in time, on Earth.

My point points out how a constant flow of power from those who produce that power honestly, flowing to very bad people, make the honest productive people weaker, and make the very bad people more powerful, and an extreme end on that road has been, and is now, and will be extreme to a point that can be illustrated with picture, words, or personal experiences.

I choose words to illustrate the point.

You are forced by someone to choose between eating one of your children alive, to save the other one, or, failing to obey, without question, the person forcing you to obey, without question, will eat your children alive first, and then do whatever that person cares to do to you afterward.

Your point is understood by me, as a point worth pondering.

You know me by now, so you can expect this type of challenge offered back to you, as I offer my point, over, and over, and over, and over again.

The book intends to convey the meaning expressed in Joe's Law.

Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

The idea is to illustrate how life can be when the victims stop obeying the criminals without question.

I will print this despite the very harsh language, the very harsh mental imagery, the extreme example offered to press the point upon you, in case you fail to get the point offered.

I am not, and you are not, asking for someone to force anyone to make such choices as the choices being made, the real choices, the real evil extremes, on this road.

This road is the opposite of Joe's Law.

Power produced into scarcity increases the price of power while purchasing power decreases (for the victims not for the criminals) because lack of power (to the victims) increases the cost of production.

The victims grow weaker, the criminals grow stronger.

The victims grow fewer in number, and the criminals grow larger in number.

It is INHUMAN.

When you make human errors, realizing them to be errors, pay the price of your errors, you are being human, not good, at that time, but how are you ever to learn, and how are humans ever going to have the POWER required to adapt if humans are not designed with this power to learn?

You do not force other people to choose between Evil A (eat one kid), or Evil B (be eaten), so my point remains to be pointing at those who do force those evil choices upon their targeted victims.

Point out, at least, the most powerful evil people, and stop making them so much more powerful, and learn by doing that, since sending the most evil people the entire amount of surplus power you can make, is on a scale a more serious error, compared to a tattoo.

Is that reasonable, or are you going to continue with this effort to blame everyone for the actions of a few?




Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed May 8th, 2013 05:04 pm
  PM Quote Reply
9th Post
bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
joe,

You are forced by someone to choose between eating one of your children alive, to save the other one, or, failing to obey, without question, the person forcing you to obey, without question, will eat your children alive first, and then do whatever that person cares to do to you afterward.

The answer for me is easy. I will not eat a child to save the rest. I will allow God to work justice in His way and in His timing.

Joe, hatred is murder:

1 John 3:15 KJV
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

I am not trying to change your book. And it is my bad that I start talking about the necessity of the device being a preclusion to the fact that I hold that people are evil.

I have had hate in my heart. Sometimes I still do and I have to confess it and resist it.

I understand that you are speaking of extremes when talking about some of the human race. My point is, that it is only by the grace of God that I am not one of them.

One can take the topic of sexual addiction and understand that certain extremes become necessary to highten certain feelings.

Murder csn be the same for a murderer. Sheer pleasure can be experienced by some as they murder.

My point is that the reason the immobilization device is such an excellent idea is that one can protect themselves without killing or harming the other party. So that one does not become that which they abhore...a killer.

I have recently found this link and it causes me to think that perhaps I have not understood the Revolutionary War in the frame of mind that the very simple among us who will not kill another human because they are human:

http://www.anabaptists.org/history/anabaptists-during-revolutionary-war.html

Perhaps we are a bloody society because our birth was thru blood?

Perhaps one should never kill if one really believes the other party might end up in hell. Perhaps one would trade one's own life to give that other person the chance to find forgiveness and eternal life in Jesus.

Perhaps it is evil that we would choose our own life over anothers?

:)

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed May 8th, 2013 07:48 pm
  PM Quote Reply
10th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5998
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
bear,

You appear to contradict yourself in the context of my point, and of course you don't contradict yourself in the context of your point, so the offering here is to work, and work more, and keep on working more, until there may yet be a bridge built between our competitive viewpoints.

You write:

My point is, that it is only by the grace of God that I am not one of them.

You wrote that in contradiction to what you wrote earlier, which is this:

The answer for me is easy. I will not eat a child to save the rest. I will allow God to work justice in His way and in His timing.
My point was to point out that you are not alone, in your power to decide what you will do, as you refuse to obey without question, when evil people lay before you a false choice that is so extreme to you, that you can easily see past the deception.

And my point goes on to point out that there are people  who will obey, without question, no matter how easy, or how difficult it is to see past the deception, and furthermore, there are people who love to create those situations whereby people are forced into such situations, when there is no need to do so, other than that need for evil, that choice to be evil, made by that individual person, at that time, and in that place.

You decide to be good, despite the false choices, despite the real choices being all bad, because someone else chooses to deceive you, and harm you, for their exclusive fun, and their exclusive profit.

You are the reason for me seeing past the deception, past the threats of violence, past the violence upon the innocent, done by evil people, and seeing a choice to invent, produce, and maintain a defensive device used in defense against evil people.

You are not alone, there are many people worth defending, not just you, in my opinion.

I have no interest in defending people who choose to be evil, and they can have their fun and profit at each others expense, since any effort on my part to help them, as far as my experience goes, only encourages them into more intense thoughts and actions of evil.

So to me there are at least 2 types of human beings, and these individual human beings volunteer to belong in these two types, by their willful choices, with, or without, external powers combining with their individual power.

If you were to choose evil, and then love it, make it your own, instead of the opposite, which is to err, and then recognize error, then where would you belong, where would you volunteer to be, by those choices of yours?

Would you, then, hold God accountable for your choices?

Do you now hold God accountable for your choices?

Why do you hold yourself accountable for the choices of evil people, when clearly, you are not evil?


One can take the topic of sexual addiction and understand that certain extremes become necessary to highten certain feelings.

Murder csn be the same for a murderer. Sheer pleasure can be experienced by some as they murder.

I don't do that either. Sex is sex. Addiction is addiction. Murder is Murder. Pleasure from sex is pleasure from sex. Pleasure from addiction is pleasure from addiction. Pleasure from murder is pleasure from murder.

I don't confuse any of those, as if all of those are one thing.

I gain no pleasure from injuring people, so far, and if I were to find someone I hate so much, and I had power over them, and I had the choice of torturing and murdering them for my exclusive fun, and my exclusive profit, I can recognize that such a thing done by me is evil, and I can work to avoid such things, even now.

That is not the same thing as a person born without any moral compunction whatsoever, someone who will just as easily, gladly, and without restraint of any kind, torture, and murder massive numbers of people, because it feels good to them, and it feels better for them, if there is visible, palpable, terror, and misery inflicted upon the victim.

That is my point.

Don't feed the Mad Dogs, and the Man Eating Tigers, as their hunger won't stop at the food you bring, they will eat your fingers, your hand, your arm, and return when they are no longer satisfied with eating more than your generous offerings.

My point is that the reason the immobilization device is such an excellent idea is that one can protect themselves without killing or harming the other party. So that one does not become that which they abhore...a killer.
Now we share the point, so the bridge is built. The device exists in the form of accurate perspective, and good judgement, a power, a defensive power, an honest power, an accurate power, and a productive power, worth sharing.

The actual device, described above, is illustrated with the fictional device in the fictional story, and in my mind, and shared with anyone who may also want to see it, the fictional device does not yet exist, so the viewer, the reader, will be asked, in so many words, in the story, why does that device not exist yet, in that form?

Perhaps we are a bloody society because our birth was thru blood?
Again, I don't do that, I do not blame everyone for the actions of a few people. The few gain power by deception, by threats of violence, and by violence upon the innocent, and those few change the course of human history, they admit it, they do it, it is categorically unarguable, a mere fact, so why ignore that fact, and why move into this fictional accounting whereby everyone is guilty of the actions of a few people?

I don't do that, why would I do that, it is false.

We are a bloody society?

Show me the list of names.

Out of that list of names who decided to deceive, threaten, and violently attack who, and who defended against such things?

All are guilty, because some chose crime?

No. The accurate, demonstrable answer is no, we are not all guilty of resorting to crime as a means of survival.

Perhaps one should never kill if one really believes the other party might end up in hell. Perhaps one would trade one's own life to give that other person the chance to find forgiveness and eternal life in Jesus.
Less crime occurs when crime pays less.

Is that the same thing?

Stop paying criminals so well, and see what happens?

Jesus shows up and high fives?

Perhaps it is evil that we would choose our own life over anothers?
 You?

Who answered my question?

The answer for me is easy. I will not eat a child to save the rest. I will allow God to work justice in His way and in His timing.
Who is "we"?

1.
The people inventing, producing, and maintaining the lesser of two evils set of choices.

2.
The people agreeing with the lesser of two evil choices once they are invented, produced, and maintained by the inventors, producers, and those who perpetuate those false choices.

3.
Anyone not volunteering to be in those groups listed above.

4.
Anyone refusing to be in those groups listed above.

5.
Anyone willfully choosing to defend against those listed in 1 and 2.

6.
People not having anything, no connection whatsoever, with any false choices at all.

Edit:
I started reading the link and I found way too much falsehood to continue reading it.


Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed May 8th, 2013 09:31 pm
  PM Quote Reply
11th Post
bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Joe,

My point is, that it is only by the grace of God that I am not one of them.

"You wrote that in contradiction to what you wrote earlier, which is this:"

The answer for me is easy. I will not eat a child to save the rest. I will allow God to work justice in His way and in His timing.


It is because of the fact that by the grace of God I am not one of them that I will not eat one of my children, but will allow God to meet justice in His time. It is not a contradiction. One is dependent upon the other.

My point about pleasure/sex/addiction/murder is that when addiction occurs an increased intensity is required to acheive the same pleasure. That is why some murder during after or before sex. There is heightened sensory input (or perception) which is required to acheive pleasure which addiction occurs.

t is not the same thing as a person born without any moral compunction whatsoever, someone who will just as easily, gladly, and without restraint of any kind, torture, and murder massive numbers of people, because it feels good to them, and it feels better for them, if there is visible, palpable, terror, and misery inflicted upon the victim.

Are people born this way? Or do people become this way by choices they make or by choices that are forced upon them; i.e., children who are forced into pedophilia then might become pedophiles.

Romans 1: 21Because that, when they knewGod, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful ; but became vainin their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened . 22 Professing themselves to bewise, they became fools , 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator , who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another ; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

That passage above explains that God gives people up to do evil because they refuse to know God.

This passage explains the mechanics of the action of sin:

James 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. 13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived , it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

I don't do that, why would I do that, it is false.

We are a bloody society?

Show me the list of names.


What I mean is that perhaps the government of our land from sea to shining sea, and by government I mean a list of names that follow and have followed principles that achieve death thru war, because the initial government of this land from sea to shining sea, and by initial government, I mean that list of names that decided to fight the war for independence and shed blood in doing so, thus setting the arena for bloody conflict for the last 200+ years. A nation built on spilt blood continues to spill blood. I realize a nation cannot do anything, but a list of people do things. I because that list of people did so to start this country, the list of people continues to do so: shed blood.
Perhaps it is evil that we would choose our own life over anothers?
“Who is "we"?”


When someone shows up at your door to rape and pillage, will you shed blood?

Edit:
I started reading the link and I found way too much falsehood to continue reading it.


Do you think this part is false? http://www.anabaptists.org/history/anabaptists-during-revolutionary-war.html ?

The Liberties of Nonresistant Christians. Some Americans supported neither side in the Revolution. Instead, as Mennonite and German Baptist leaders said in 1775, "We have dedicated ourselves to serve all men in everything that can be helpful to the preservation of men's lives, but...we are not at liberty in conscience to take up arms to conquer our enemies, but rather to pray to God, who has power in heaven and on earth, for us and them." Chief among these nonresistant Christians were the Quakers, Mennonites, German Baptists, Moravians, and Schwenkfelders.
Most nonresistant Christians were quite content with their lot as British subjects. As three Mennonite bishops in Pennsylvania wrote in 1773, "Through God's mercy we enjoy unlimited freedom in both civil and religious matters." Ironically, once the fight for liberty started, the freedom of nonresistant Christians became sharply limited.
Militia Duty. The first issue that peace-promoting Christians faced was militia duty. After Lexington and Concord, patriot committees called all able-bodied men to join a voluntary association "to learn the art of war." The associators noticed that the nonresistant Christians did not join in the drills. They demanded laws requiring everybody to serve.
In November 1775, Mennonite and German Baptist ministers sent A Short and Sincere Declaration to the Pennsylvania assembly. They suggested an alternative to militia duty. They would donate money to help poor families left destitute because their men were off fighting. Instead Pennsylvania passed a law levying a special war tax on all non-associators. Later it said nonresistant Christians could hire substitutes or pay a fine. Most nonresistant Christians refused to do either, because as the Short and Sincere Declaration stated, they found "no freedom in giving, or doing, or assisting in anything by which men's lives are destroyed or hurt." Therefore, Patriot officials confiscated their property to pay the tax and fines.


I ask because I am wondering why I never knew that there were Baptists who refused to shed blood. I find it very interesting that “we” have been trained that “our” “patriotic duty” is to fight when “we” are called upon in order to secure “our” Freedoms. I am wondering if my and by my I mean my spiritual forefathers refused to shed blood…even in war. Maybe that is also why they were persecuted thru the middle ages…too many pacifists wouldn’t work well for those powers that be that like to make war for profit and perpetrate fraud on the good faith and credit of the people.

Am I bothering while you are trying to write?

:)

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu May 9th, 2013 02:35 am
  PM Quote Reply
12th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5998
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
bear,

When someone shows up at your door to rape and pillage, will you shed blood?
A quick reply to an accurately measurable lack of power to communicate, the above inspires me to answer more so than anything read earlier in your last generous offering of competitive perspective.

If I and my family are not raped and pillaged, and the aggressor is bleeding, then my opinion is that I have done the right thing. So, my answer in your context is:

God willing, yes.

I have to finish dinner.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu May 9th, 2013 01:45 pm
  PM Quote Reply
13th Post
Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I may be an alien being born onto this planet since it seems as if I am the only individual capable of avoiding the same error everyone else appears to do routinely.

That is a nice one. Actually close to some of my worldview for once. You realize that looks like a crossroads point? )))))

Murder csn be the same for a murderer. Sheer pleasure can be experienced by some as they murder.

Now this is the ground for lack of categorizing. The main problem here is inability or lack of effort to distinguish beneficial and damaging activities (including the way those are conducted). Whatever the reasons in any case, one cannot simply compare activities of different categories. Social parasites like simple serial murderers or thieves or whatnot are those completely unaware of such distinction. Damage they do for themselves by performing said activities is unknown to them. I won't go into specifics of that damage just yet though. Let's just say that "pleasure" is not the same.

I felt obligated to comment on that. Fell free to delete this post.


P.S. We are created by God in his image, which proves him to be either a terrible architect or a paranoid schizophrenic. Everyone is inherently sinful, yet Jesus paid for everyone's sins. Everyone is blamed for his inherent sinfulness, even though it is in fact ultimately God's fault. At the same time every creation man does is credited to God. What a funny way of slavery. Rothschild managers should be jealous of this governing genius. Oh, wait, their predecessors were his lackeys, so that's where the profession originated... No amount of gospeling can convince me that 'almighty' being ended up making things so obscure and ultimately inefficient, and then refuses to clean up its own mess. Angry child would do something like this, to be sure. I am absolutely disgusted by those baptists if those brainless individuals did exist they way they are described. Yes, killing someone is damaging. My ancestors paid dearly to know that. You know how in early social structures and settlements everybody know everybody, everyone is relative in some way? Yet in these societies that were no place for social parasites. There wasn't enough production to feed the parasite. So any person who gave in to misunderstanding and become, say, thief - was exiled. Why not killed? Because they were relatives, they were pitied, even murderers and rapists. And they were even given supplies for the road. And all those parasites ended up going west, many of which forming bandit gangs and returning. Others, discovering less technologically advanced peoples effectively became leaders. Yet they were parasites which resulted in many states with parasitic foundation. And my ancestors paid dearly for not executing parasites early on. You know of cossacks? There is one case where some cossacks (official Russian military at the time) were besieged. Eventually it ended up in assault with overwhelming numbers. yet cossacks won and enemy army ran away. But exhausted cossacks made chase and didn't allow anyone to escape.

When someone shows up at your door to rape and pillage, will you shed blood?

Undoubtedly. And if after I can also demote to an animal or even destroy his soul - I will.

Last edited on Thu May 9th, 2013 01:45 pm by Jee-Host[gm]

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu May 9th, 2013 03:12 pm
  PM Quote Reply
14th Post
bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Jee-Host, Are you speaking to me and bringing up the topic of religion which you have asked me not to discuss? Or perhaps you are only speaking to Josf, which is what I was doing, and you have replied so that I can hear you speak these words:

P.S. We are created by God in his image, which proves him to be either a terrible architect or a paranoid schizophrenic. Everyone is inherently sinful, yet Jesus paid for everyone's sins. Everyone is blamed for his inherent sinfulness, even though it is in fact ultimately God's fault. At the same time every creation man does is credited to God. What a funny way of slavery. Rothschild managers should be jealous of this governing genius. Oh, wait, their predecessors were his lackeys, so that's where the profession originated... No amount of gospeling can convince me that 'almighty' being ended up making things so obscure and ultimately inefficient, and then refuses to clean up its own mess. Angry child would do something like this, to be sure. I am absolutely disgusted by those baptists if those brainless individuals did exist they way they are described. Yes, killing someone is damaging. My ancestors paid dearly to know that. You know how in early social structures and settlements everybody know everybody, everyone is relative in some way? Yet in these societies that were no place for social parasites. There wasn't enough production to feed the parasite. So any person who gave in to misunderstanding and become, say, thief - was exiled. Why not killed? Because they were relatives, they were pitied, even murderers and rapists. And they were even given supplies for the road. And all those parasites ended up going west, many of which forming bandit gangs and returning. Others, discovering less technologically advanced peoples effectively became leaders. Yet they were parasites which resulted in many states with parasitic foundation. And my ancestors paid dearly for not executing parasites early on. You know of cossacks? There is one case where some cossacks (official Russian military at the time) were besieged. Eventually it ended up in assault with overwhelming numbers. yet cossacks won and enemy army ran away. But exhausted cossacks made chase and didn't allow anyone to escape.

I hardly think it is fair for you to state your opinions, directed at me and my opinions, while placing duct tape over my mouth so that I cannot speak to the same topic.

...

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu May 9th, 2013 03:43 pm
  PM Quote Reply
15th Post
bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Josf, I am struggling with sorting out my thoughts regarding pacifism.

It seems to me that this was an early topic for you and me. I am specifically troubled by this dot connecting that I am doing:

I ask because I am wondering why I never knew that there were Baptists who refused to shed blood. I find it very interesting that “we” have been trained that “our” “patriotic duty” is to fight when “we” are called upon in order to secure “our” Freedoms. I am wondering if my and by my I mean my spiritual forefathers refused to shed blood…even in war. Maybe that is also why they were persecuted thru the middle ages…too many pacifists wouldn’t work well for those powers that be that like to make war for profit and perpetrate fraud on the good faith and credit of the people

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu May 9th, 2013 03:46 pm
  PM Quote Reply
16th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5998
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
bear,

After Lexington and Concord, patriot committees called all able-bodied men to join a voluntary association "to learn the art of war."
I read falsehood in that sentence, for example.

The word "patriot" is combined with "committees," and so there are lists of names of people who think and act according to those thoughts and actions that belong in those committees. "They" do not act as one.

"They" do not all claim that there will be punishment executed upon the targets who don't "volunteer" to obey the orders without question.

I've read accounts of how some people were not confusing the concept of a voluntary association with the opposite of a voluntary association, and a person who refused to volunteer to aid, and abet, lending moral support, and material support to either attackers or defenders in any conflict between any number of people, were not subject to punishment for failing to obey the order to aid, abet, lend moral support, and lend material support, to either combatants, aggressor, defender, or any degree of willful intent, good, or bad, in any case.

That is what I mean when I write the words I write in that book you assembled called Joe's law. I can find the relevant quotes if the inspiration plays out in that direction.

No, I say, no, no, no, everyone is not responsible, and therefore not accurately accountable for, the actions of a few who do, in fact, punish people for failing to obey orders without question, whereby the orders are evil, wrong, destructive, aggressive, against God's will, against natural law, against common sense, against common law, and in a word, the orders are criminal.

The word "patriot" attached to a person who is merely criminal is routine for criminals, as any false front that hides the fact that the criminal is a criminal will do, and there is no affection, no loyalty, to the flavor of the word that hides the criminal best, any label is as good as the next, so along as the label accomplishes the task of hiding the criminal behind that false front.

The words I can wholeheartedly agree with in principle are these:

They would donate money to help poor families left destitute because their men were off fighting.
They who do that are good people, Christian or Mormon, Jewish or Buddhist, the reasons and actions are good, life preserving, not life destroying, in my opinion. In practice, as the rubber meets the road, far away from the confines of principle, a criminal, false, destructive, attacker, may be presently torturing, and murdering, millions, and the good person may find themselves in a position to press a button, or pull a trigger, and in that instant the human being could end that reign of terror, and to me it is perfectly human, and not at all inhuman, to do so, in defense.

It is inhuman, devilish, evil, wrong, criminal, destructive, perverted, unconscionable, unreasonable, for a person to willfully employ their individual power in the work of injuring innocent people with falsehoods, threats, and violence, especially when such behavior is institutionalized, and the accurate measures of the destruction, in blood, screams, agony, terror, misery, severed limbs, severed heads, and bodies pile up into the millions upon millions of otherwise good, innocent, people, who are now very dead: for fun and profit.

1.
Best principle is do no harm.

2.
In practice the Mad Dogs may become dead at the hands of one of their victims.

I do not advocate institutionalized aggressive violence under any False Flag of any kind whatsoever, and if other people do so, then they do not belong within the same group as I do, based upon my thoughts, and based upon my actions, where I volunteer to be in the group, if there is a group, I belong.

The Falsehood I see is the falsehood that confuses defensive actions with offensive actions willfully done by individual people.

Confusion is very likely in practice, impossible in principle. In English, on papers, for example, there is no room for confusion, so follow the paper trail, and find those who counterfeit. When asked, they will lie, to cover up their crimes, each time.

What is the problem?

If there is no solution, then seeking the solution is the problem.

If there is a solution, then failing to see the solution is the problem.

If the problem is crime, by any other name, then the solution cannot be to become a criminal; or a victim.

Am I bothering while you are trying to write?
I am writing. Into the new fictional book are things I want to say, and these ideas find me, and I can capture them and place them on paper before they are gone. I have one that is standing the test of time, concerning the idea of power, and how power works.

I was able to expand the idea into effective communicate with my wife, so the idea is gaining currency.

We were speaking to each other, as we sometimes do, about intimate things, our deepest fears, and our most precious moments, and my part of the conversation returned to this present idea that I want to place in the Novel.

I see a person viewed as a snap shot, a moment in time and place, and that person is measurably alive based upon physical matter, and that becomes a standard from which to then view other things.

So there is this person, and that person is measurably alive, healthy, breathing air, processing all those processes involved in living, at that moment, in that place.

Then I take out my scale, a tool, a statistical measure of extremes on each end, and an average in the middle, where this scale measures brain function, where this tool, this brain, is either used by some other power, such as a soul, or will, or intensity of controlled thought, or not, used, or not used, by an individual being, where the being is being human. On one side of the scale the brain to be placed into this body, at that time, and in that place, is a brain controlled by external powers, a brain that is tortured, suffering, and abused by perceptions of external things bombarding this brain, and this brain is then thrown into this body, and this brain, and this body move from where it is to where it is going.

On the other end of the scale is this brain that is used by this internal power of will, this soul if you will, and this soul decides to reject the concept of being a victim to those external powers, and this soul decides to use this brain in such a way as to employ the brain power available to gain more power in the form of control over how those external powers affect this brain, and this body, and then this is on the other end of the scale as this brain is thrown into this body, in this place, at this time.

There are now two bodies to view from that moment in time and place. One body goes one way, and the other body goes the other way.

I am writing, and as usual your generous help is appreciated.








Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu May 9th, 2013 04:32 pm
  PM Quote Reply
17th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5998
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
To anyone,

So any person who gave in to misunderstanding and become, say, thief - was exiled. Why not killed? Because they were relatives, they were pitied, even murderers and rapists. And they were even given supplies for the road.
Sergey has, to me, as much of a good soul as anyone, no more, and no less, valuable to me as anyone else, because of such things as the above quoted words.

I do not like the fact that Sergey and bear are unable to reconcile differences that may be reconcilable, if I am at all able to demonstrate the possibility that such reconciliation can occur.

Those who are not subject to the same thoughts as other people are not subject to them, and therefore it is potentially impossible to "get into their shoes," and in this thing called life, it seems to me, despite the difficulty, there is value in working to reach that potentially impossible goal.

In other words, there are enough barriers existing between one person and another person already, so why build more, if the idea is to learn from each other?

If the idea is to defeat each other, then the barriers being built are called check vales, or transistors, or one way connections, where attacks can flow from attacker to target, and the barriers are constructed in such a way as to remove the possibility of any return, through the barrier, of any power at all, going from target, and going back to attacker.

Dictation is a flow of power from the source to the target, and the dictator has no capacity, whatsoever, of knowing anything that the target may have to offer back to the dictator; by choice.

One way, on purpose.

For fun, or for profit?

And all those parasites ended up going west, many of which forming bandit gangs and returning. Others, discovering less technologically advanced peoples effectively became leaders. Yet they were parasites which resulted in many states with parasitic foundation. And my ancestors paid dearly for not executing parasites early on.
If possible, and forget it if it is not possible, the principles, and the expedient practicalities of employing principles, can be documented in English.

I cannot read Russian, and I am old, running out of time, for reaching such goals as reading Russian.

In English:

I.
Criminals commit crime.

True or false?

If true then is there a way to avoid being victim or criminal?

If true, then by whose power is it determined to be neither criminal or victim?

To me, as far as my limited power goes, no one is harmed willfully by any other person, when there is neither criminal or victim.

To me, therefore, the following is reasonable:

So any person who gave in to misunderstanding and become, say, thief - was exiled. Why not killed? Because they were relatives, they were pitied, even murderers and rapists. And they were even given supplies for the road.
I have trouble reasoning out the following:

And all those parasites ended up going west, many of which forming bandit gangs and returning. Others, discovering less technologically advanced peoples effectively became leaders. Yet they were parasites which resulted in many states with parasitic foundation. And my ancestors paid dearly for not executing parasites early on.
Specifically this:

And my ancestors paid dearly for not executing parasites early on.
Any case in point, as an accurately measurable, perceivable, communicable, realizable, understandable, actual, situation involving an individual "ancestor," and an individual "parasite," in the past, in the present, or in the future, known, accounted for accurately, as an example, to demonstrate the principle, and to then demonstrate the expedient, effective, employment of the principle, could help me understand, it seems to me.

Otherwise, in my opinion, I have to disagree with the principle as I see it at the moment.

I disagree with this:

And my ancestors paid dearly for not executing parasites early on.
I, at the moment, agree with this:

So any person who gave in to misunderstanding and become, say, thief - was exiled. Why not killed? Because they were relatives, they were pitied, even murderers and rapists. And they were even given supplies for the road.
I think the door is open both ways, so far, on this point, as far as I am concerned, within the limits of my power to keep the door open both ways, on this point.

Undoubtedly. And if after I can also demote to an animal or even destroy his soul - I will.
I can say, without resort to deception, that I think I understand the concept of becoming animal like, or animalistic, during the time when a blood clot was in my lung, and the pain of breathing caused me to breath faster, and I lost control of breathing, and therefore the pain was out of control, and the result was a panic attack, and then a sense of being animal like, while I paced around the hospital waiting room, waiting for a room.

I think there is a disconnection between thoughtful principle and any effective employment of such thoughts, as time and place converge into that pinpoint called reality. I think that individual people are driven both internally and externally, driven by those internal, and external powers, in a struggle to gain that power to drive thoughts and actions, and it is common to confuse which power dominates the other, until such time as the present becomes the past, and records of events are then available for comparative, accurate, measure.

If, for example, thoughts, and actions, are institutionalized, there is then a record of those thoughts and actions.

A.
Do no harm

B.
Harm

If B is institutionalized, there is a record of B being institutionalized.

If A is institutionalized, there is a record of A being institutionalized.

A can then be accurately measured relative to B.




Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu May 9th, 2013 04:52 pm
  PM Quote Reply
18th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5998
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
bear,

Josf, I am struggling with sorting out my thoughts regarding pacifism.
I fall back onto my well worn principle of Do No Harm.

I was reading and commenting on Sergey's words and at one point I was in agreement with his words.

Here:

So any person who gave in to misunderstanding and become, say, thief - was exiled. Why not killed? Because they were relatives, they were pitied, even murderers and rapists. And they were even given supplies for the road.
Then I read further and found words that fail to be agreeable to me.

And my ancestors paid dearly for not executing parasites early on.
The reason for my disagreement has to do with Man Made Law, or Institutionalized Law, whereby there is a fictional power created, a Legal Fiction, and that imaginary POWER "says" that it will be done, whereby it is good, whereby it is law, whereby it is justified, whereby it is right, whereby it is moral, whereby it is financed, whereby there will be people hired, whereby there will be people specialized, whereby there will be people trained, to kill people, on purpose, for profit.

I say no.

I am not saying no to the concept of Military Power.

If you are confused by my perceptions here, then I may be able to explain how a contradiction appears to exist, when I see no such thing.

Military Power can be entirely defensive, as an Institution, as a Law, as a Man Made Set of Rules, whereby the idea is to Do No Harm, but be prepared to defend against harm.

A Military Specialist can be prepared to be one of many Military Specialists who are ready, willing, and able, to stand in between a criminal and a victim, or stand in between a group of criminals and a group of victims.

How about this angle of view:

If said Army of Defensive Specialists, a Military, were to gain the required POWER, to be truly effective, capable, and to realize their goal, then any criminal intending to harm any victim would first be known, measured, quantified, and overpowered, in each case.

As soon as that one criminal acted in any way to injure any victim, the well trained, well informed, and powerful Military Specialist, on the scene, would overpower the criminal, and the victim would not be harmed.

Why do you think I invented my Defensive Weapon, designed exactly the way I designed it?

As soon as an Army of Criminals invade a Country of people, will there be enough POWER in the Defenders Military Force to avoid any harm, at all?

If the answer is no, then you can realize why I am not against The Military, whereby the goal of The Military is to Do No Harm.

Failure to prepare an effective defensive POWER invites the creation of an effective offensive POWER.

It starts with a small transfer of POWER from those who create that power to those who steal that POWER, and then those criminals use the POWER stolen to steal more POWER.

To me this goes back to Joe's Law, and the accurate measure of The Power Struggle.

I do not sign onto Institutionalized Harming of anyone.

It is not a contradiction to be in support of Institutionalized Defense against Harming Anyone.

Does that make sense?


Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu May 9th, 2013 06:41 pm
  PM Quote Reply
19th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5998
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
An idea occurs to me concerning the invention called an LD, or Lie Detector, and the concept could be based upon Sortion, also known as "The Wisdom of Crowds," were this invention merely works as a Search Engine, and the words spoken are calculated through an elaborate program, and there is a grade given to the words spoken on a scale.

The program/search engine/feedback/display moves along while two people may be speaking to each other, and there are then two displays measured as accurate on one end of the scale and inaccurate on the other end of the scale.

It occurs to me that there could even be a second scale that works as an indicator of reliability, or tolerance, as in machine work, where the second scale shows a reinforcing level of accuracy to the first scale, along the lines of how Personality Tests can be tested for accuracy when the Personality Test is designed to test honesty.

So a conversation can be recorded, run through the LD device, and the first scale for Person A may read neutral while Person A is speaking about nothing having to do with anything, such as speaking randomly, baby talk, gibberish, or speaking in an language not recognized by the program software. The second scale may go fully to the high percentage of error side of the scale, furthest away from any measure of accuracy, since the information received is meaningless according to the software.

Then Person B asks a question, such as "Isn't it a nice day"?

Note: Where do I put the question mark relative to the quotation mark?

Having no context, no information before or after that one question, would be relatively insignificant on an accuracy scale, and having only gibberish in context is roughly the same condition of having nothing relative to measure along side of, or in context with, but the idea here includes a program that measures general opinions of what is, or is not nice, so the location may be a known location, and the day may include a hurricane force of weather currently destroying lives and things, so an answer of "Yes, it is a nice day." could move the LD display toward inaccuracy, and the tolerance of error could move toward higher probability of precise information.

Now, in context, such a device could be understood as being more, or less, lethal to Criminals as would be the Universal Defensive Weapon, or UDW, device when considering the POWER of deception.

Idle conversation about weather among two friends in a semi-private (so called) conversation can be compared with a room full of people assembled to judge what a few candidates for public (so called) office have to say as the candidates compete to gain moral/psychological/political and material/physical/economic support.




Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu May 9th, 2013 06:52 pm
  PM Quote Reply
20th Post
Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
BEAR,

Jee-Host, Are you speaking to me and bringing up the topic of religion which you have asked me not to discuss? Or perhaps you are only speaking to Josf, which is what I was doing, and you have replied so that I can hear you speak these words:

It was post scriptum - afterthought. Right after words "delete at will". So until the quoting in the very end it was just thinking aloud.

Delete at will btw still stands for all my posts in this thread.

I hardly think it is fair for you to state your opinions, directed at me and my opinions, while placing duct tape over my mouth so that I cannot speak to the same topic.

I'm not placing duct tape. If you recall, I told that I only won't be responding to religious zealotry, nothing stops you from venting it if it's required for whatever purpose.

---------------------------------------------

Joe,

I do not like the fact that Sergey and bear are unable to reconcile differences that may be reconcilable, if I am at all able to demonstrate the possibility that such reconciliation can occur.

I'm willing to work out any differences as long as it involves working to do so. Not "God (supposedly) said this and that and therefore - this and that", but as per usual:

- What (Who)?
- How ?
- Why ?

I'd be the first to admit plausibility if there were at least some traction outside of binary logic. I can go on and on about appraising thoughts and ideas - ability - that everyone develops on their own. I find that if some "answer" was found then there is a better way to explain it than what I hear.

A difficult (somewhat) example:

I adore certain opera performers. Due to certain knowledge I have I can figure out with accuracy let's say vector of person's development. That is easier to do with artists, because any true artist put his soul into his art. My point is that I see some that are consciously work for self-development. And traces of that subtle work they do are noticeable. They WORK for self-development. They experiment for once.

And so did I with religion. Most sad thing about it are those who are true believers and good of heart. They manage to be good because of their souls, but this false pretense that was incrusted in their brains stops them from evolving, which is one of the goals of social parasites. these people are good not because of faith, but they are trapped in this vile circle and this enrages me. Many times it's not even their fault, but it's incredibly detrimental to their entities nonetheless.

But this is enough of me babbling and running around.


I can say, without resort to deception, that I think I understand the concept of becoming animal like, or animalistic, during the time when a blood clot was in my lung, and the pain of breathing caused me to breath faster, and I lost control of breathing, and therefore the pain was out of control, and the result was a panic attack, and then a sense of being animal like, while I paced around the hospital waiting room, waiting for a room.


Scratch that. I said:

"And if after I can also demote HIS SOUL to an animal STATE or even destroy HIS SOUL - I will."

My English is just that bad.

But anyway, I talked about execution as proper option because at this point there couldn't be other means. And this measure wouldn't really hamper things, but rather help in the long run. Because they didn't do it (at least not often enough) this whole social parasite problem we have today is as worse as it is. Soul (entity) develops along with body. If wrong choices are maid soul develops and 'distorts' accordingly. At some point there are too many wrong choices accumulated and from that point forth the only way for that soul to survive is to become a parasite. But naturally, being a soul of creature so complex as human this soul is more dangerous than soul of some random tiger. And there are means to demote or destroy any soul. Demoting to the point from where development can begin anew and on the right track is one thing. Destroying dissipates the entity, freeing the matter. Certain people describe this process as 'unmaking' to the zero point.

So let's say my ancestor made the right choice to spare parasites. Can you spin logical chain of events that can even remotely justify it? I suppose that they didn't the right choice and paid for it eventually, with their civilization being destroyed and purposefully buried into oblivion. There is a great deal of things one can learn from them and use in today's life to make it much much better. But ultimately they failed because they got destroyed. So I cannot be like them or I end up the same. I have to be better. And for that I shouldN'T make the same mistakes they did. Being overly humane in the stage where humanity is not yet ready. Take faith for example. A great early-stage tool of survival, brings people together by chaining yet undeveloped abilities of the mind. But, it is no longer needed, and so by the will of parasites it becomes an instrument of suppression. For them - no mean is unjustified if any profit is gained and any non-parasite is at least slowed down in his development in any way. Because parasites are as obsolete as faith. They work as natural niche only in animal world. But parasite with a mind - is something else. It doesn't belong anywhere - and that is why everywhere it goes it destroys everything around it. Early execution of those parasites would have given their souls another chance. But by not doing it my ancestors doomed these souls and with them many other souls on which parasites feed.

I don't know why am I even taking time to say all this. Surely you've researched certain things for yourself. You might not be aware of matter types and level model, but a man as smart as you can't not know all this stuff above already.

Just ignore me, I'm going on and babbling off-topic again. Let's pretend that I didn't say anything.

Last edited on Thu May 9th, 2013 06:59 pm by Jee-Host[gm]

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 02:35 am Page:    1  2  3  Next Page Last Page    
Power Independence > Book > Novel > Idea Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems