Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,845 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,888,184
Pageviews Today: 2,743,541Threads Today: 641Posts Today: 14,042
08:11 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

The GLP Family - Love of Freedom is Our Common Thread

 
simultaneous_final (OP)

User ID: 33292391
United States
02/11/2013 04:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The GLP Family - Love of Freedom is Our Common Thread
Seriously though--gotta sleep.
A subject observes itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself ad infinitum.
Requiem

User ID: 34122263
Australia
02/11/2013 04:49 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The GLP Family - Love of Freedom is Our Common Thread
By breaking the law, they are removing themselves from the law.

If someone breaches the consent of another, for example, then they are subject to criminal law--the consequences of such will likely be a breach of their own consent.

They broke the law. Or in other words, when they breached consent, they operated outside the law. They operated within the LOW.

Since they don't "understand" (in the legal sense) criminal law, then they are subject to the LOW--a breach of their consent.
 Quoting: simultaneous_final


You are claiming that it is OK to breach their consent because they do not abide by your laws. Because their laws say it's ok to breach consent and therefore it's ok for YOU to do so.
but mate YOU LIVE UNDER YOUR OWN LAWS NOT THEIRS>
just because they do not live by your version of what's right and wrong, just because they refuse to consent to agree to your laws, you claim the right to label them them 'violatable, justifiably' and therefore excuse yourself from breaking your first law?
also, may I say you assume to know what laws people who do not abide by YOURS live under? you can DO no such thing, because you do not know them.


if you say it's ok to violate them because they don't live by your laws, and you don't break your law by claiming that people as defined in your laws do not include all people, who are people. WTF IS THAT...eh? it is the denial of what IS. Some people are human and others are not? you say that "what rights we afford some we do not afford others" and THAT mate is supremely inconsistent [and anachronistic]... you just gotta admit it in the end and work with it or forever be in denial of the truth of your state.

plain and simply you are breaking your own laws by doing so, mate and no argument from you can change that.. it is an obviated fact.
For a long time, philosophers of law and such have been aware of this little inconsistency.. but claiming that it does not exist will get you NO WHERE in solving it for yourself.

Last Edited by Requiem on 02/11/2013 05:13 AM
Requiem

User ID: 34122263
Australia
02/11/2013 05:34 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The GLP Family - Love of Freedom is Our Common Thread
By breaking the law, they are removing themselves from the law.

If someone breaches the consent of another, for example, then they are subject to criminal law--the consequences of such will likely be a breach of their own consent.

They broke the law. Or in other words, when they breached consent, they operated outside the law. They operated within the LOW.

Since they don't "understand" (in the legal sense) criminal law, then they are subject to the LOW--a breach of their consent.
 Quoting: simultaneous_final


so then.. your justification for being a hypocritical inconsistent 18th century throwback is,,,,, let me get this straight,,,,,, that anyone who would refuse to consent to libertarian laws can be justifiably violated in direct opposition to the first law without ACTUALLY breaking it because they don't deserve to be treated as having a will which should not be violated.

So you say that in order to uphold laws one must break them but it's justifiable because they are savages anyway so who cares right? That's an inconsistency no one will argue against because it keeps everyone safe and shit. What that doesn't clear up though is that you have taken it upon yourself to claim that you have the right to break your own laws under certain circumstances, and under those circumstances it's OK to be a hypocrite [justified inconsistency] because it's only savages after all. No one will hold that against you. Well the fuck, I WILL.

I'm right here. I don't consent to your libertarian laws. And so you would say that it's ok to violate my consent in direct violation of your first law, because I just don't the fuck matter? I live by my OWN laws, which you can only attempt to assume to know. My laws are an unknown to you. My laws may produce civilisation through avenues much different to your own. Or they may not. Whatever the case, I do not consent to your laws being enforced upon me. Thereby, this means you claim justifiable violation of my free will, breaking your first law by violating my consent but claiming that that's ok, I am a 'savage' anyway and am judged to "deserve it".. and what you need to be clear about here too is that YOU are the one violating the person's free will, not "others" in the "jungle" doing that violating FOR you. This violation occurs within your own field.

What you do is say that "it's ok for "them" to do it, and ok for me to do it to them because they do it to each other" [an assumption may I add (that they do it to each other), because you assume all other law systems are "junglejuice-retarded"]. wow, mate, sounds like a perfect defence for a bumfucking savage mud fest orgy in the barn doesn't it after cooking and eating a nice young plump girl on rolls with gravy. because after all, "they do it to each other so it's ok to do it as long as I'm doing it with [and to] them". two wongs don't make a white. lol. And if you claim that two wrongs DO make a right, but that your wrong was a right that made it right.. because you're all special and shit, then hey.... just admit it.

Last Edited by Requiem on 02/11/2013 08:14 AM
Goofy for God
Do everything with love

User ID: 16845676
United States
02/11/2013 07:21 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The GLP Family - Love of Freedom is Our Common Thread
I love my GLP Familygrouphug
Proverbs 15:1
A soft answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 29658172
United States
02/11/2013 07:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The GLP Family - Love of Freedom is Our Common Thread
bump
Requiem

User ID: 34122263
Australia
02/11/2013 09:55 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The GLP Family - Love of Freedom is Our Common Thread
I was hoping more people would like to debate this subject, it's a fascinating one. bored rainy night for me, then!!!
simultaneous_final (OP)

User ID: 33292391
United States
02/11/2013 10:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The GLP Family - Love of Freedom is Our Common Thread
By breaking the law, they are removing themselves from the law.

If someone breaches the consent of another, for example, then they are subject to criminal law--the consequences of such will likely be a breach of their own consent.

They broke the law. Or in other words, when they breached consent, they operated outside the law. They operated within the LOW.

Since they don't "understand" (in the legal sense) criminal law, then they are subject to the LOW--a breach of their consent.
 Quoting: simultaneous_final


so then.. your justification for being a hypocritical inconsistent 18th century throwback is,,,,, let me get this straight,,,,,, that anyone who would refuse to consent to libertarian laws can be justifiably violated in direct opposition to the first law without ACTUALLY breaking it because they don't deserve to be treated as having a will which should not be violated.

So you say that in order to uphold laws one must break them but it's justifiable because they are savages anyway so who cares right? That's an inconsistency no one will argue against because it keeps everyone safe and shit. What that doesn't clear up though is that you have taken it upon yourself to claim that you have the right to break your own laws under certain circumstances, and under those circumstances it's OK to be a hypocrite [justified inconsistency] because it's only savages after all. No one will hold that against you. Well the fuck, I WILL.

I'm right here. I don't consent to your libertarian laws. And so you would say that it's ok to violate my consent in direct violation of your first law, because I just don't the fuck matter? I live by my OWN laws, which you can only attempt to assume to know. My laws are an unknown to you. My laws may produce civilisation through avenues much different to your own. Or they may not. Whatever the case, I do not consent to your laws being enforced upon me. Thereby, this means you claim justifiable violation of my free will, breaking your first law by violating my consent but claiming that that's ok, I am a 'savage' anyway and am judged to "deserve it".. and what you need to be clear about here too is that YOU are the one violating the person's free will, not "others" in the "jungle" doing that violating FOR you. This violation occurs within your own field.

What you do is say that "it's ok for "them" to do it, and ok for me to do it to them because they do it to each other" [an assumption may I add (that they do it to each other), because you assume all other law systems are "junglejuice-retarded"]. wow, mate, sounds like a perfect defence for a bumfucking savage mud fest orgy in the barn doesn't it after cooking and eating a nice young plump girl on rolls with gravy. because after all, "they do it to each other so it's ok to do it as long as I'm doing it with [and to] them". two wongs don't make a white. lol. And if you claim that two wrongs DO make a right, but that your wrong was a right that made it right.. because you're all special and shit, then hey.... just admit it.
 Quoting: Requiem


Good evening. (morning here)
You make good points. And I concede that there is inherent inconsistency in criminal and civil law. Therefore, I concede that you are right...however,

One operates under ("understands", in the legal sense) the law that governs their actions.

If one's actions are consistent with the LOW (strongest or sneakiest wins), then they are accountable to the LOW.

Perhaps there are no repurcussions (they "get away with it"). Perhaps they are found out.

If they are found out, then the LOW will be applied to them. They too will be subject to the strongest (law enforcement) and the sneakiest (legal system).

This seems consistent to me. Where am I wrong here?
A subject observes itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself ad infinitum.
Requiem

User ID: 34122263
Australia
02/11/2013 10:36 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The GLP Family - Love of Freedom is Our Common Thread
Good evening. (morning here)
You make good points. And I concede that there is inherent inconsistency in criminal and civil law. Therefore, I concede that you are right...however,

One operates under ("understands", in the legal sense) the law that governs their actions.

If one's actions are consistent with the LOW (strongest or sneakiest wins), then they are accountable to the LOW.

Perhaps there are no repurcussions (they "get away with it"). Perhaps they are found out.

If they are found out, then the LOW will be applied to them. They too will be subject to the strongest (law enforcement) and the sneakiest (legal system).

This seems consistent to me. Where am I wrong here?
 Quoting: simultaneous_final


I feel that if i keep saying where the inconsistency is that I would be repeating myself too much. my answer to your question here is exactly the same as in the last post I made: you can't operate under two sets of laws as an operator and not be inconsistent. If you operate under the libertarian system as described, then you violate it by even invoking it. If you try to invent a double screen and try to hide the violation behind a slight of hand, it doesn't make it go away. you break your own first law however you try to hide it or justify it.


you claim here that if someones actions are consistent with the law of the wild they are accountable to the law of the wild... that is YOUR judgement and ruling... it has absolutely nothing to DO with "them". Basically your descriptions of a law of the wild system is nonsense. You assume a cohesive system of punishment, just as YOUR system invokes.. you assume some kind of karmic thing going on or retribution or whatever... when there is no such thing necessarily.

They would be all like wtf are you even talking about... sovereign individuals operate a little differently to how you seem to imagine.. WE AREN'T IN THE FUCKING JUNGLE MATE. The wild isn't exclusively inhabited by savages and head hunters.. it isn't 1750 anymore. The wild harbours a much more evolved and sovereign type of soul these days.

They don't follow some automatic system that exists outside the field where libertarian laws exist. Outside of the libertarian system there are many different kinds of systems.

You say that "if they are found out the law of the wild will be applied to them".... BY WHO? BY YOU? if you apply the law of the wild to them, then you violate their consent and break your first law. it is as simple as that. And if you say that others in the "wild" will apply the punishment FOR you? you can't say that because you have no jurisdiction there. And the laws of the place are individuistic and unknown to you. whether they are violated in the 'wild' or not is unknown and uncontrollable to you.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 34101416
United States
02/11/2013 10:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The GLP Family - Love of Freedom is Our Common Thread
you're fulla shit OP.

it's only free here if you pay!!!lmao

or agree with everything the mads believe.

i got banned just because i said walking dead was a crappy show just made for sensless violence.

poopkissup
simultaneous_final (OP)

User ID: 33292391
United States
02/11/2013 10:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The GLP Family - Love of Freedom is Our Common Thread
Good evening. (morning here)
You make good points. And I concede that there is inherent inconsistency in criminal and civil law. Therefore, I concede that you are right...however,

One operates under ("understands", in the legal sense) the law that governs their actions.

If one's actions are consistent with the LOW (strongest or sneakiest wins), then they are accountable to the LOW.

Perhaps there are no repurcussions (they "get away with it"). Perhaps they are found out.

If they are found out, then the LOW will be applied to them. They too will be subject to the strongest (law enforcement) and the sneakiest (legal system).

This seems consistent to me. Where am I wrong here?
 Quoting: simultaneous_final


I feel that if i keep saying where the inconsistency is that I would be repeating myself too much. my answer to your question here is exactly the same as in the last post I made: you can't operate under two sets of laws as an operator and not be inconsistent. If you operate under the libertarian system as described, then you violate it by even invoking it. If you try to invent a double screen and try to hide the violation behind a slight of hand, it doesn't make it go away. you break your own first law however you try to hide it or justify it.


you claim here that if someones actions are consistent with the law of the wild they are accountable to the law of the wild... that is YOUR judgement and ruling... it has absolutely nothing to DO with "them". Basically your descriptions of a law of the wild system is nonsense. You assume a cohesive system of punishment, just as YOUR system invokes.. you assume some kind of karmic thing going on or retribution or whatever... when there is no such thing necessarily.

They would be all like wtf are you even talking about... sovereign individuals operate a little differently to how you seem to imagine.. WE AREN'T IN THE FUCKING JUNGLE MATE. The wild isn't exclusively inhabited by savages and head hunters.. it isn't 1750 anymore. The wild harbours a much more evolved and sovereign type of soul these days.

They don't follow some automatic system that exists outside the field where libertarian laws exist. Outside of the libertarian system there are many different kinds of systems.

You say that "if they are found out the law of the wild will be applied to them".... BY WHO? BY YOU? if you apply the law of the wild to them, then you violate their consent and break your first law. it is as simple as that. And if you say that others in the "wild" will apply the punishment FOR you? you can't say that because you have no jurisdiction there. And the laws of the place are individuistic and unknown to you. whether they are violated in the 'wild' or not is unknown and uncontrollable to you.
 Quoting: Requiem


The LOW does imply "savagery" but with connotations aside. I mean it in the strictest sense defined as:

"outside of civil and criminal law"

I see what you mean about inconsistency, though. Even a "civilized" (again, in the strict sense and connotations aside) individual (or system) must act under the LOW in order to enforce punishment.

This, I certainly agree with. It's an unfortunate rub that has been debated many times throughout history (as you mentioned previously).

But if you recall, I mentioned that actions governed by the LOW sometimes go unpunished. People "get away with" all types of breaches of consent or contract. It happens. I certainly won't argue that it doesn't.

However, there are still natural consequences for those actions. Some examples of these natural consequences might include: Perpetrators may be compelled to hide or lie about their actions. Keeping up with lies can be mentally taxing. Perpetrators may have to flea or go into hiding. Perpetrators may suffer interpersonal reputation problems. Examples are limited only by the imagination.

Also, you said:

"Outside of the libertarian system there are many different kinds of systems."

May I have some examples?
A subject observes itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself ad infinitum.
simultaneous_final (OP)

User ID: 33292391
United States
02/11/2013 11:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The GLP Family - Love of Freedom is Our Common Thread
you're fulla shit OP.

it's only free here if you pay!!!lmao

or agree with everything the mads believe.

i got banned just because i said walking dead was a crappy show just made for sensless violence.

poopkissup
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34101416


I disagree. Become a member. Get some karma. Upgrade your account. No cash required.

Believe me, I've been banned for stupid shit too. BUT, let's face it--the mods have an interest in people signing up for accounts. It equals more advertising dollars. I don't think that it's unfair for mods to "twist arms" a bit in order to get people to sign up.

ACs get a great benefit here at GLP. Is it too much to ask that they give something back? By simply getting an account, you help GLP.
A subject observes itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself observing itself ad infinitum.
Vision Thing

User ID: 33314345
United States
02/11/2013 11:34 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The GLP Family - Love of Freedom is Our Common Thread
That a conspiracy site even rewards its members for being snitches of copyright violators is a paradox I have not yet wrapped my head around.


 Quoting: Deaf Cat in the Blue Hat


They did it in hopes that they wouldn't be sued and shut down?
Use this link to get $5.00 off your first order at Swanson Vitamins
[link to www.swansonvitamins.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1386090
Mexico
02/11/2013 12:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The GLP Family - Love of Freedom is Our Common Thread
you're fulla shit OP.

it's only free here if you pay!!!lmao

or agree with everything the mads believe.

i got banned just because i said walking dead was a crappy show just made for sensless violence.

poopkissup
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34101416


Concur with the first statement this isn't a safe haven for lunatics fringers anymore and you are a square brained for to think that about walking dead show...it's an apocalipsis end of the civilizatin as we know it tale, there has to be blood!
stormer

User ID: 34149521
South Africa
02/11/2013 12:25 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The GLP Family - Love of Freedom is Our Common Thread
resist
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery - Bob Marley
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20566260
United States
02/11/2013 02:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The GLP Family - Love of Freedom is Our Common Thread
yeah you're right,are we all yidiots,yid or gent which are
you,yid control or DIY what do you want,the fate of the yid
hun was sealed when David dIcke/ edgar cayce opened his mouth
on the second centenary of the yid french revolution,what's
the difference between god and yid,god wants us to be free,
creates the habitat to be so,yid doesn't,the wrathschild
yids have created a world where everyone's dependent on
money created by them,to get it we have to work for them,
we're supposed to work for god not yid bloodsucker
middlemen,see abundanthope.net/nov7 PJ228 ch3/4,the curse of
the world is people who set theirself up in authority over
others,hierarchy of fear,13 million yids control/ destroy
the world to the detriment of the rest,time we marginalised
them,they have power over us because we give them our power
by working for them,hatonn says he'll work with us not for
us,we need to do the same,must be good fun arresting folk,
handcuffing them,making their wrist hurt,locking them up,
humiliating them in a cell,raiding their premises,
confiscating their property,charging them etc,interesting
our yid government is the biggest perpetrator of crime:
killing people/ animals,flooding the country with drugs,
producing toxic food/water/air/pharmaceuticals,
indoctrinating the populace with propaganda instead of truth
etc, god determines the law not yids,see phoenix journal 27,
the nile valley is a fertile plain because it floods once a
year,you don't mess with nature,it's god at work,thanks to
the yid antichrist the planet's irreparable,interesting the
queen is a double,the british empire is the yid empire,they
control banking/the media/governments etc,start all the wars
,pollute/ destroy the planet/ us,see protocols of the
learned elders of zion,we work for yids for yid money/
vouchers to buy yid goods,all we've got to do is WITHDRAW
our manpower,their corporations including government will
collapse,then we can get on with living instead of slaving,
see ringingcedars.com,everyone selfsufficient,each community
decide its own fate,in accord with the laws of balance,see
phoenix journal 27,we don't need money/ sell something to
survive,look at other species,once there was a firmament/
belt of vapour round the earth,like venus now,protecting it
from harsh radiation and maintaining a constant temperature,
resulting in lush vegetation/ food everywhere,however it was
ruptured causing the deluge/ oceans,fortunately it's being
restored,see abundanthope.net,then we'll have perpetual
spring,the garden of eden/ aden,help yourself,everyone self
sufficient,we don't need landownership/ deforestation,
permaculture not agriculture,we don't need concrete jungle,
all construction can be underground or tree houses,eight
billion annunaki have been removed from inside the earth
which is hollow, 1k miles thick,the poles are holes, 1k
miles wide,entrances to the inner earth,see erks.org, we
don't need fossil fuel,oil is the lifeblood of the earth,the
continents float on it,electricity meters are C19th tesla
free energy generators,using magnets/ dipoles to transform
high frequency energy of the aether into low frequency
energy,see cheniere.org, people get ready for the cataclysm
say your catechism,expect TV announcements about the three
days of darkness,maybe this year,see abundanthope.net/ feb20
WAVE SYMPTOMS
 Quoting: jingo 1154368


Tl;dr be a prepper.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 30742855
United States
02/11/2013 04:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The GLP Family - Love of Freedom is Our Common Thread
That a conspiracy site even rewards its members for being snitches of copyright violators is a paradox I have not yet wrapped my head around.


 Quoting: Deaf Cat in the Blue Hat


They did it in hopes that they wouldn't be sued and shut down?
 Quoting: Vision Thing


That, in my opinion, is the obvious excuse the systems gives the sheeple.

They could get plenty of volunteers to troll for copyright violations to report from among those who support and earn a living from IP laws provided they aren't too busy enjoying the cushy life that corrupting the Lord's will of how the intellect he gave us is to be profited from provides them.

It truly goes deeper than that if you think about it. The owners and crew purport to be on our side with fighting the control TPTB try to reign in on everyone, but yet they do not do everything in their power to fight with us and instead ask us for money to pick and choose what battles they want to fight.

If they were being sued for fighting the system, they would need to spam for money. They aren't fighting all of it, though, so their need for money is greatly diminished than were they to be as actively fighting IP law hypocrisy as they should.

I do still have a great deal of respect for them for allowing us our freedom to discuss such things. From my principled perspective, though, they are playing the system's ball and thus making the problem worse.

Their efforts are just from their own perspective, I can only assume. I don't understand their perspective and I don't need to, all I need to do is have faith their hearts are in the right place. Usually it does seem to be so.

Skimmed through late evening and morning activity here just now, and I have to say it's inspiring to find myself drawn to threads like this where people are getting into heated disagreements and there's a near utter lack of personal jabs and insults being tossed around.
:lovethread:
Requiem

User ID: 34216801
Australia
02/12/2013 01:37 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The GLP Family - Love of Freedom is Our Common Thread
The LOW does imply "savagery" but with connotations aside. I mean it in the strictest sense defined as:

"outside of civil and criminal law"

I see what you mean about inconsistency, though. Even a "civilized" (again, in the strict sense and connotations aside) individual (or system) must act under the LOW in order to enforce punishment.

This, I certainly agree with. It's an unfortunate rub that has been debated many times throughout history (as you mentioned previously).

But if you recall, I mentioned that actions governed by the LOW sometimes go unpunished. People "get away with" all types of breaches of consent or contract. It happens. I certainly won't argue that it doesn't.

However, there are still natural consequences for those actions. Some examples of these natural consequences might include: Perpetrators may be compelled to hide or lie about their actions. Keeping up with lies can be mentally taxing. Perpetrators may have to flea or go into hiding. Perpetrators may suffer interpersonal reputation problems. Examples are limited only by the imagination.

Also, you said:

"Outside of the libertarian system there are many different kinds of systems."

May I have some examples?
 Quoting: simultaneous_final




Ok so speaking broadly there are probably two camps that come to mind which are outside the obvious 'other' kinds like a dictatorship or a fascist system etc. There are the systems which function in groups and the ones which function individualistically. Tribal ways of functioning can have completely different understandings of 'self' 'other' 'property' and such so that laws which talk about violation of the will of the self are not really translatable in the same way.

The way that I know best is the sovereign individuistic way. In this the laws I abide by are ones that I have deemed fit, myself. And I work on a very specific basis in that there is not so much an overarching law that applies to everyone, but that each case is unique and a law that applies to one may not apply to another simply because of my judgement of the situation or person as a whole. It is very much an anything goes type system in that it is extremely flexible, just as life itself is. In so saying, I am in tune with life better that way.

News