State of Jefferson (Freedom: school, title, rated)

[Gentoo]

When curmudgeon and nullgeo are both in agreement over the same abscure meanings in the same persons posts, it's time to step away from the computer, go outside and take a run if you're that person.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by GregHenry

Sleazy move, buddy. Propaganda playbook: accuse the other guy of what you're doing.

In this case, when you, a collectivist, accuse a liberty advocate of attacking any form of freedom it just sounds shrill and desperate.

More term-shifting from you. What is "social freedom," and how does it differ from "freedom?"

Nonetheless, you've asked for a definition, so here you are: Freedom is the absence of physical interference with an individual's person and property. The words are clear. Fairness demands that you either agree with this or post an alternative definition.

"Sleazy"?
You mean like labeling me a "collectivist" -- when you haven't the foggiest notion what I am about?

"Liberty advocate"? But not at liberty to define the term, I guess, since all you do is dance and snap.
I asked you to tell us readers your vision of how liberty and freedom would manifest in a society ... or to declare that you mean "free from society" altogether ... So far you've done nothing but flap your lips through the keyboard without living up to your own demands of others ... yep, sounds like a typical "liberty advocate" to me.

"Fairness demands", huh?
Let's see you play by your own rules.
Way I see it, here I was, sitting on my cyber-barstool having some conversation and chuckles with a couple of other old fa*ts, and in swaggers a new fella, who sets down between us and starts telling us what freedom isn't, and to define our terms "or else".

So, I looks down into my half finished suds and figure I'm in good shape for wherever this guy wants to go -- and I good-naturedly suggest he tone it down, define his own terms, or suggest further engagement.

So what's it going to be, Greg?

[GregHenry]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

When curmudgeon and nullgeo are both in agreement over the same abscure meanings in the same persons posts, it's time to step away from the computer, go outside and take a run if you're that person.

I would think that the two of them would be in disagreement quite rarely. They come from the same avenue of political theory. Both are huge collectivists, highly opposed to liberty and highly supportive of the group over the individual. If they bicker, it's over small matters.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by Leonard64

Oh nuts I have been outed.

On the other hand I must also be a socialist ...., well pig has been used, so how about the South end of a horse walking North, since others in my family fought for the North

See! I knew it! A commie-pinko masquerading as capitalist swine!

[nullgeo]

Hey Chief ... waiting for you to call in air-strikes ...

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by GregHenry

I would think that the two of them would be in disagreement quite rarely. They come from the same avenue of political theory. Both are huge collectivists, highly opposed to liberty and highly supportive of the group over the individual. If they bicker, it's over small matters.

Grand fun ...
and still nothing from PatrickHenry about when and where in history the individual homo sapien thrived / thrives over the social homo sapien ... oh wait, there are no individual homosapiens, they are all social ...

[GregHenry]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

"Sleazy"?
You mean like labeling me a "collectivist" -- when you haven't the foggiest notion what I am about?

Post 96 proved the indictment fully. Have you forgotten your own words from just a few pages ago?

"Liberty advocate"? But not at liberty to define the term, I guess, since all you do is dance and snap.
I asked you to tell us readers your vision of how liberty and freedom would manifest in a society ... or to declare that you mean "free from society" altogether ... So far you've done nothing but flap your lips through the keyboard without living up to your own demands of others ... yep, sounds like a typical "liberty advocate" to me.

I see you've ignored all of my posts in this thread, particularly Post 116.

"Fairness demands", huh?
Let's see you play by your own rules.
Way I see it, here I was, sitting on my cyber-barstool having some conversation and chuckles with a couple of other old fa*ts, and in swaggers a new fella, who sets down between us and starts telling us what freedom isn't, and to define our terms "or else".

Skip the folksy irrelevance. You're in a real argument here. Act like it. Don't try to slink out of the corner into which you've backed yourself.

So, I looks down into my half finished suds and figure I'm in good shape for wherever this guy wants to go -- and I good-naturedly suggest he tone it down, define his own terms, or suggest further engagement.

Oooh, a threat. When the group is unsuccessful at changing the mind of an individual, the group kills the individual. How 20th Century left-wing-dictator of you.

So what's it going to be, Greg?

It's still your move. Do you agree with the definition in Post 116, and if not, what's your alternative definition?

[Leonard64]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

See! I knew it! A commie-pinko masquerading as capitalist swine!

I am only "pink" when I have been out in the Sun too long.

[Leonard64]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

See! I knew it! A commie-pinko masquerading as capitalist swine!

No a socialist ... (horses' %^&), masquerading as a Capitalist swine.

[GregHenry]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Grand fun ...
and still nothing from PatrickHenry about when and where in history the individual homo sapien thrived / thrives over the social homo sapien ... oh wait, there are no individual homosapiens, they are all social ...

Back to this? You tried this previously and were told in Post 98 that you have a great deal of work to do before you can say this.

Please note how you can utter this statement and deny that you're a collectivist?