The context of my words were centered around that. When people start talking about themselves, attaching them to or against the Left, they invite a response on the same subject.

If this is so horrible to those here, they should make for a more objective point of view and “detach” themselves from the concept that there is only one “truth” (their truth).

If people here already accepted that there are many truths, I would tend to wonder why they spend so much energy on arguing about which is the “one truth” here. If there are multiple truths, why does it matter whether anyone else in the world agrees with you or not? If your truth isn’t the only truth, why does it matter what other people think. So I come to the conclusion that people are arguing because they think things only have one Truth, one Purpose, one Goal. How that lines up with liberty and individual will…. is unknown as of yet. But it lines up perfectly with authority=slavery, at least.

It is another argument for authority, a single authority that determines everything about humans. If only an indirect one.

I’m not convinced that people arguing for a strict, single interpretation of things will be able to refuse in the future. Any more than people who refuse to support an American war get to pay 0% taxes just because. When the authority commands humans, humans will obey, whether they want to or not. If there are as many different truths and interpretations as there are human beings in existence, then an authority loses most of its standing. Whether that authority is good or evil, doesn’t matter. The worst case scenario is that it is evil.

If people cannot make a security guarantee, then I have no reason to agree with their policy or treaty. Their truth isn’t my truth, nor is it the universal truth.

Instead of thinking Schroedinger’s cat is dead or alive, I prefer to think of it as both dead and alive until the box is opened. It is less restrictive on human freedom, will, and options then.

The Left’s propaganda war is tied in with their power politics. Meaning, they aren’t just talk. If they claim the cat is dead, they’ll open the box, smash the cat with their Power, then claim the cat was always dead. If they open the box and the cat is dead, that means they are right. If they open the box and the cat is alive, they are still right because the cat will then be dead.

Without a security guarantee, or a claim of some productivity coming from the words here, I can’t quite believe they will have any deleterious effect on the Left nor benefit to me or my allies. Words by themselves are unimportant. Backed by action, they become important. The Left’s actions are ruthless and thus their words are important. But the Left cannot be fought merely by rejecting their words here or anywhere else.

One thing I’d like to clarify, and then I’ll,drop it and we can part and agree to disagree.

You said, “It’s not an argument made out of fear of the left( as Jim Sullivan wondered above)…”

Perhaps I wasn’t fully clear. I didn’t mean that you were afraid of the Left. I meant that I wondered if you were afraid of sounding like the left. But that’s neither here nor there, now.

Take care.

Factories are evil and bad because they discharge into the environment: environmental controls to the max

Coal burning is evil and bad because it contributes to CO2 and global warming: Cap and Trade

Freon is evil and bad because it depletes the ozone (does it?): Impose regulations

Doctors are evil and bad (unnecessry tonsilectomies and amputations): Obamacare

Southern states are still evil and bad: Maintain obsolete govt oversight of voting regulations

Salt, 32 oz drinks. transfats (etc.) are evil and bad: Impose regulations

And one final favorite (with hypocrisy added as a special treat):

Cigarettes are evil and bad: Raise cigarette taxes to discourage smoking

BUT!!!!!!

The economy is lagging: Raise taxes to encourage economic growth.

Let me carry my above post just one short step further. The Left relies on the following argument:

gun control is essential and good because guns are inherently evil and bad

Now, by reduction to the level that gun = tools (although the Left will never admit that) the result is:

gun control is essential and good because guns are tools

In all fairness to Jim Sullivan, nowhere in our discussion did he imply that tools can not be used for purposes other than intended. IMO our discussion centered around the inherent nature of the tool itself.

Jim Sullivan’s position seems to be (not to speak for him) that one argues with the left by essentially saying “guns are made to kill, so what?” In other words the best defense is a strong offense. I do not disagree with that idea but I reject such a debate approach for precisely the reason you state above:

If it is unwise to leave loaded weapons around out in the open for criminals to take and use against us, I wonder why it is individuals think it is safer to do the same thing with conceptual weapons and propaganda concepts.

I offer, however, that my position is more than just a superficial and convenient political position. If we were speaking in the terms of physics, I would say that Jim Sullivan argues at the molecular level (gun = killing tool) while my argument is at the atomic level (gun = tool). It’s not an argument made, as Jim Sullivan posits above, out of fear of the left, it’s an argument made by reduction to a single basic essential.

Like you, I recognize that the left, in any gun argument, refuses to accept any aspect of human intervention (as I mentioned above). They can’t because it negates their moral absolutism and would force them to re-direct their argument. As I have written at this site before, every argument with a Progressive/Leftist is an attempt to validate their own moral and cultural superiority, and in my mind, the only way deal with their smokescreens is to negate their false premise by reducing an argument to it’s “atomic” level where the smokescreens can no longer exist. It’s not an argument made out of fear of the left (as Jim Sullivan wondered above) but rather an argument made by reduction to a single basic essential which eliminates the “wiggle room” on which the Left relies.

Absent such proof, it’s merely an idea. An idea nurtured in the bosom of American freedom. An idea that is also a weapon when used by the Left. If it is unwise to leave loaded weapons around out in the open for criminals to take and use against us, I wonder why it is individuals think it is safer to do the same thing with conceptual weapons and propaganda concepts.

Which is to say, they consider their thoughts to be their own and would never truly think of becoming an authority or empowering an authority to define a tool’s purpose as a way of enslaving humanity or creating a utopian order using human bodies. However, the Left thinks and acts differently. They are more disciplined, as an army should be when involved in war. They don’t have individual opinions or thoughts, only tactics and strategies for information management, propaganda, and opponent killing.

To a neutral or non Leftist member, talking about the purpose of tools is purely harmless. Since no matter what the result of the concept or the purpose, human slavery is a “non sequitor”.

But to the Left, everything is connected to the Authority That is their Religion. It is this very inability to think of the enemy from the eyes of the enemy, that forms the weakness and the liability.

For while neutral parties consider themselves harmless, they do not think that they will be made into a living tool of the Left to help control their fellows. Their thoughts are their own. Their freedom of will is their own.

To the Leftist alliance, there is no such thing as “freedom”. They will not allow such a thing. Thus, those who speak of empowering any kind of authority with the conceptual weapon of “defining” reality in a certain way, I must ask them to demonstrate proof that they are unable to be controlled by the Left’s conquering army/authority. I must ask them to show proof that they will never be converted to the Left’s side, that their resources will never be used to harm or enslave their fellow human beings. That having their own “thoughts”, will not promote or render aid to the enemy.

But if this isn’t easy to understand for some, perhaps that is its own answer in a way.

I would not go into the habit of underestimating the Left or denizens like Mitsu or Zachariel. They can always surprise. In fact, they should always surprise, given what their alliance pays out for operative fees.

Whether we are arguing tools or not…. is something unimportant. For the Left exists. And where ever the Left exists, people are not arguing about freedom or anything of that sort.

“As for tools, the purpose and result of it is determined by the user. If an authority can pre determine what the tool should be used for, this is essentially the same as a slave master telling his slaves what they were born to do, as tools.

It comes down to a question of fate and free will. Does the Leftist alliance get to tell us how to use what we have, or are individuals supposed to decide for themselves what is what.”

First, no one here ever said they couldn’t be used for something other than their stated original purpose, so, I don’t know where Slavery comes into this. T and I argue what the tool is designed to do. I do not argue that a tool can’t be used for some other purpose. Such a statement is a straw man. Save that for the leftists.

Second, until a hammer, saw, gun or knife becomes a living, breathing thing, rather than an inanimate object…

What are you even saying? We argue tools, you argue slavery. I am at a loss how to respond to such a non sequitur.

It is time for me to disengage from this before it descends into a parody, if it hasn’t already.

As for tools, the purpose and result of it is determined by the user. If an authority can pre determine what the tool should be used for, this is essentially the same as a slave master telling his slaves what they were born to do, as tools.

It comes down to a question of fate and free will. Does the Leftist alliance get to tell us how to use what we have, or are individuals supposed to decide for themselves what is what.