Priests and Collectivism

[Mr. Perfidy]

This hit me last night, thinking about the Cops vs Collectivism thread on here, and how we are quick to hate on a cop and how the consensus is basically that the police surrender their individual humanity by voluntarily joining a cult of aggressive force. Those are my feelings, but, I wonder who extends this idea to the Priests?

Everything that you say about the cops, regarding their voluntary subordination to the occupying authority, is true of priests. A great many are "good people" in that they use their influence to help where they can, but, I believe this to be as lame a cop out as the "good policeman" masturbation.

A popular argument against the police is when people say something like,
"what kind of person wants to get paid to...(be an asshole)?"

Well, what kind of person grows up wanting to turn people's surrender and belief into their house and car and retirement and kids' college?
Fuck that guy.

[RonPaulMania]

Threads like this make me realize all the more why I come here for information only and not some pop psychology by someone who has never studied logic but believes they are logical.

A cheap swipe at priests is one more reason why libertarian collectivism is a reality.

So many here bash "religion" on here like it's going out of style and all of the cries against collectivism go silent, but say that one race commits crime against another more frequently and the collectivist cries howl in the night.

Without realizing it so many of you are the worst form of collectivists: a Godless, immoral collection of libertines that only select what the state of the political correctness tells us is wrong and those people who have problems against PC world are "collectivists".

You'll wonder why this movement will go nowhere and never will be after the anti-God left has taken over the schools, the political system, and while thinking you are so against those people who mostly go big government you have more in league with them than any real basis of American society based on morals and decency.

And yes, I'm a collectivist because it's called logic; I group things in the mind like society, justice, et al.. I can even go further and combine ideas like justice to society, and what is just for the collective. Instead you pretend there is no such thing as the collective and hypocritically attack any institution (which is collective BTW) and my bet is you have a hard time accepting objective morality as well.

Quite the conundrum for the illogical minds on here.

[Ender]

Pretty ridiculous thread.

First of all, religion is a CHOICE; being hassled by overlords is not.

Second, most clergy sacrifice a great deal for the good of their flock; many have only the bare essentials because they believe in what they are doing.

Collectivism as a personal choice is not the same as forced "collectivism". One is a Zion-like community- the other is communism.

[acptulsa]

I think the Middle Ages was warning enough against the evils of compulsary religion. Yes, the Moral Majorities do pop up over time, trying to overlegislate morality (and generally being embraced by the very party that pays lip service to Constitutionalism). But they never seem to put it over, do they?

I think we have enemies enough in the people who took the republic out of the Republican Convention. I don't expect us to get distracted from that clear and present enemy to some silly non-enemy like some medieval priest.

[Mr. Perfidy]

So many here bash "religion" on here like it's going out of style and all of the cries against collectivism go silent, but say that one race commits crime against another more frequently and the collectivist cries howl in the night.

Yeah I agree that the libel "collectivist" is typically used in a collectivist fashion to deflect from images and reputations that Libertarians are trying to de-emphasize and discard.

I also believe though that what we call religion in america is shameless profiteering on the ignorance and insecurity of weak minds.

[Mr. Perfidy]

anyway my point in making the thread is that one collectivist group, the police, are generally regarded as appropriate to treat as a collective menace, while another group, swallowing perhaps more resources, is not ok to treat as such, even though they are propped up by code-enforcements, tax codes, and political connections.

[acptulsa]

I also believe though that what we call religion in america is shameless profiteering on the ignorance and insecurity of weak minds.

I believe that about what we call backwater broadcast religious televangelism. And some others, too. But that's the only apt description of religion in America? Really? None of us could possibly know of a church where people willingly congregate, contribute, and operate a sanctuary and a bunch of chartiable work in a neighborhood? And/or, that fits your description?

[Mr. Perfidy]

I believe that about what we call backwater broadcast religious televangelism. And some others, too. But that's the only apt description of religion in America? Really? None of us could possibly know of a church where people willingly congregate, contribute, and operate a sanctuary and a bunch of chartiable work in a neighborhood? And/or, that fits your description?

nah I don't really think those kinds of institutions exist in america anymore. Maybe in small and secret circles, but if you have a church, at least in my county, there seems to be some kind of legislation that demands it have a US Flag and a God Bless America message. Fuck all those people.

[Philhelm]

The police knock down people's doors and hold them at gunpoint for victimless "crimes" as a matter of standard operating procedure. I don't see priests doing this. At worst, you could argue that some of them take advantage of people who voluntarily give them money in good faith. If I don't want to be victimized by a priest, I can just simply not have any contact with them. Not so for the police, especially since I'm at risk even if I have commited no crime (Oops, wrong address! Sorry 'bout your dog.).

[Philhelm]

Fuck all those people.
...who we want to convert to our political side.

[Mr. Perfidy]

doesn't "converting" people who kneel to coercion mean teaching them to not do that?

I am perhaps alone in the Liberty community in not giving a shit about the christian, conservative idea of american liberty- the people who maintain these hopes are a very small and insignificant percent of the population compared to the other classes and cultures in my legislative districts.

[erowe1]

Well, what kind of person grows up wanting to turn people's surrender and belief into their house and car and retirement and kids' college?


Priests don't do that. They take vows of celibacy and often vows of poverty as well.

[acptulsa]

doesn't "converting" people who kneel to coercion mean teaching them to not do that?

I am perhaps alone in the Liberty community in not giving a shit about the christian, conservative idea of american liberty- the people who maintain these hopes are a very small and insignificant percent of the population compared to the other classes and cultures in my legislative districts.

In other words, you convict and condemn with the broad mallet of a collectivist. But we knew that already.

Convicted when your neighbors and associates are convicted. Guilt by association. Got it. Don't want it, but got it.

[Mr. Perfidy]

In other words, you convict and condemn with the broad mallet of a collectivist. But we knew that already.

Convicted when your neighbors and associates are convicted. Guilt by association. Got it. Don't want it, but got it.

was this your opinion in the thread regarding the collectivist treatment of the police? Do you really like, not know what I am saying here?

[Mr. Perfidy]

But like the Police, I see the motivation of the man that becomes a priest to be coercive in the sense that it necessarily involves deception and fraud to win and allocate resources

[AGRP]

Threads like this make me realize all the more why I come here for information only and not some pop psychology by someone who has never studied logic but believes they are logical.

A cheap swipe at priests is one more reason why libertarian collectivism is a reality.

So many here bash "religion" on here like it's going out of style and all of the cries against collectivism go silent, but say that one race commits crime against another more frequently and the collectivist cries howl in the night.

Without realizing it so many of you are the worst form of collectivists: a Godless, immoral collection of libertines that only select what the state of the political correctness tells us is wrong and those people who have problems against PC world are "collectivists".

You'll wonder why this movement will go nowhere and never will be after the anti-God left has taken over the schools, the political system, and while thinking you are so against those people who mostly go big government you have more in league with them than any real basis of American society based on morals and decency.

And yes, I'm a collectivist because it's called logic; I group things in the mind like society, justice, et al.. I can even go further and combine ideas like justice to society, and what is just for the collective. Instead you pretend there is no such thing as the collective and hypocritically attack any institution (which is collective BTW) and my bet is you have a hard time accepting objective morality as well.

Quite the conundrum for the illogical minds on here.

He has a good point. There are warnings about religion and the church throughout the Bible. In fact they are both looked down upon in the good book. There is nothing wrong with congregating, but you need to remember that is not what Christianity is about. Its not about going to church and being a good sheep.

[acptulsa]

was this your opinion in the thread regarding the collectivist treatment of the police? Do you really like, not know what I am saying here?

I have met helpful cops. And I know a couple of honest lawyers, too. And as far as I'm concerned, this is more than just opinion. I'd swear by them all.

I'm not speaking of the majority. I'm speaking of individuals who ought to be celebrated rather than ignored.

We aren't here to condemn groups as groups. We're here to beat down federal overcentralization and get as many aspects of our lives controlled from as locally as possible. Most of it from the specific locale of our own minds and free wills. And giving individual credit where due.

[PaulConventionWV]

This hit me last night, thinking about the Cops vs Collectivism thread on here, and how we are quick to hate on a cop and how the consensus is basically that the police surrender their individual humanity by voluntarily joining a cult of aggressive force. Those are my feelings, but, I wonder who extends this idea to the Priests?

Everything that you say about the cops, regarding their voluntary subordination to the occupying authority, is true of priests. A great many are "good people" in that they use their influence to help where they can, but, I believe this to be as lame a cop out as the "good policeman" masturbation.

A popular argument against the police is when people say something like,
"what kind of person wants to get paid to...(be an asshole)?"

Well, what kind of person grows up wanting to turn people's surrender and belief into their house and car and retirement and kids' college?
Fuck that guy.

Right, because priests go around killing people's dogs all the time.

Dude, you cannot be serious. Unlike the police, priests are a legitimate market function. Believe it or not, people WANT to hear from someone who's studied the word of God and relate their findings to them. Not to mention that churches offer more than just preaching. They offer getaways, Sunday school to occupy the kids, and oh, guess what, they only preach to people who WANT to be preached to. Nobody's forcing you to pay for that guy's house and life. If you don't want to pay for it, DON'T GO TO CHURCH!

Police, unlike priests, are power-hungry animals who beat, maim and steal from citizens simply because they have the state's authority to do so. Priests do not do that. They take only what people are willing to give. The Catholic Church is a whole different kind of sneaky because they, in the past, were actually a part of the state in Europe, so that led to a whole bunch of comorbidization with the state's theft habits. In this society, however, all religions are voluntary, being beaten and arrested by the police is not.

That's why they're not the same thing, and the fact that you didn't already know this means you are a very, very, very, VERY stupid person. I'm sorry, but this is the first time I've actually felt justified in calling someone stupid because, in this case, it is true. How can you call yourself a liberty activist when you hate voluntary organizations for being exactly like the police when, in fact, they are almost the complete opposite? Priests don't get paid with taxpayer money. Priests normally aren't assholes to their congregations, unless, of course, their congregation happens to be into that kind of thing.

The point is, don't make an ass out of yourself by comparing priests to police. If you are really that stupid, try to hide it.

[Mr. Perfidy]

Right, because priests go around killing people's dogs all the time.

see now you are talking about cops like they all murder dogs, and priests like none do...


Dude, you cannot be serious. Unlike the police, priests are a legitimate market function.

I don't think that any market function is legitimate, because the dollar is fraud, and therefore all pursuit of it is really surrender of your human behavior to the needs of the fraudulent financial system and its profiteers. So fuck market function.


Believe it or not, people WANT to hear from someone who's studied the word of God and relate their findings to them. Not to mention that churches offer more than just preaching. They offer getaways, Sunday school to occupy the kids, and oh, guess what, they only preach to people who WANT to be preached to. Nobody's forcing you to pay for that guy's house and life. If you don't want to pay for it, DON'T GO TO CHURCH!

another silly and childish understanding of Voluntary and Will and society and coercion. Most christians and church people that I talk to are roped into it with emotional violence and mama-said bullshit obligatory pressure.


Police, unlike priests, are power-hungry animals who beat, maim and steal from citizens simply because they have the state's authority to do so. Priests do not do that. They take only what people are willing to give.

lol seriously? You really need to investigate, whence comes want?


The point is, don't make an ass out of yourself by comparing priests to police. If you are really that stupid, try to hide it

I am actually comparing Liberty people's treatment of priests vs police as collectivist groups

[PaulConventionWV]

anyway my point in making the thread is that one collectivist group, the police, are generally regarded as appropriate to treat as a collective menace, while another group, swallowing perhaps more resources, is not ok to treat as such, even though they are propped up by code-enforcements, tax codes, and political connections.

They're not "swallowing resources". People are spending money there because they want to.

Also, what code-enforcements do they get propped up by? Churches are a legitimate market function that exist because there is a demand for it. Tax breaks are good, too. I don't blame the church for getting tax breaks. Good for them for geting stolen from less than we do. I guess now you're going to advocate for a more "fair" tax system in which we all get stolen from equally, huh?

What political connections are you even talking about? The comparison was absurd to begin with, but now you're saying things you can't even back up.

What's more, I should hasten to point out that priests often take great pains to avoid profiting from their affiliation with their church. What other business do you know that behaves in that manner? What other government do you know that behaves in that manner because they simply want to do what's right for the people?

[Mr. Perfidy]

They're not "swallowing resources". People are spending money there because they want to.

Ridiculous. Why does every Liberty person stop asking questions and investigating coercion the second someone uses the word "want?"


Also, what code-enforcements do they get propped up by?

competing groups can't host bingo and have fairs


Churches are a legitimate market function that exist because there is a demand for it. Tax breaks are good, too. I don't blame the church for getting tax breaks. Good for them for geting stolen from less than we do. I guess now you're going to advocate for a more "fair" tax system in which we all get stolen from equally, huh?

I will point out that if I had money and was dishonest, a good way to use it to extend my influence and connect its value to real social power would be to bury it in Church coffers. It creates protected spheres for the propertied classes.

[PaulConventionWV]

nah I don't really think those kinds of institutions exist in america anymore. Maybe in small and secret circles, but if you have a church, at least in my county, there seems to be some kind of legislation that demands it have a US Flag and a God Bless America message. Fuck all those people.

So now you're criticizing the church because the government is regulating them? You must be a terribly confused person. I do not want to know what it's like to live in your world.

That's like criticizing my small business because it's getting taxed to death.

[Mr. Perfidy]

only if your small business enjoyed arbitrary tax-free status and a host of social privileges that gave it unfair advantages to regulate and maintain culture

[PaulConventionWV]

He has a good point. There are warnings about religion and the church throughout the Bible. In fact they are both looked down upon in the good book. There is nothing wrong with congregating, but you need to remember that is not what Christianity is about. Its not about going to church and being a good sheep.

I agree with you, but even granted that, he still doesn't have a good point. At all.

In fact, he's so far off base that it's nearly impossible to be more wrong and more hypocritical than he is at the same time.

[Mr. Perfidy]

So it is not relevant to human freedom and constitutional government of a voluntary citizenry that if I put a cross out front, then my corporation can gamble in town, and without it, I cannot? No one gives a shit about the bible around here, but a lot of people love each other and want to have fun. The priests lobby to make this impossible. The people support them because of their ludicrous authoritarian loyalties to frozen forms of thought

[AGRP]

So now you're criticizing the church because the government is regulating them? You must be a terribly confused person. I do not want to know what it's like to live in your world.

That's like criticizing my small business because it's getting taxed to death.

You do realize there are strings attached to the tax free status right? Would Christ choose to congregate in organized "churches" which are clearly regulated by corrupt men or in a private open field where there are no such regulations? The problem is that there is a fallacy in many Christians minds that the "Church" equals Christianity. Does that same belief not condemn a Christian who follows the word the best they can and not go to church, yet praise and hold elaborate services for members of the military who murder their fellow man?

[PaulConventionWV]

see now you are talking about cops like they all murder dogs, and priests like none do...

Ok, hit me. What priests do you know that walk onto someone's property, kill their dog, then raid their homes and do it all without consequence? I'm waiting.


I don't think that any market function is legitimate, because the dollar is fraud, and therefore all pursuit of it is really surrender of your human behavior to the needs of the fraudulent financial system and its profiteers. So fuck market function.

So, in other words, you're a communist? If you don't believe there's a market, then what do you believe? Do you think someone should be able to willingly pay for something they want? If there is a market for cheeseburgers, and selling cheeseburgers is a legitimate market function, then so is being a priest. The dollar being fraud notwithstanding, most of this stuff would exist with or without the dollar because people are willing to pay gold, silver, tungsten, paper, whatever to get what they want. The dollar just happens to be the only legal form of currency, and that's nobody's fault but the government. Blaming it on people who try to get the dollar is just the same as the guy in medieval times selling a cow for a few pieces of gold. It doesn't matter what kind of money you use, people want to pay for stuff like that.


another silly and childish understanding of Voluntary and Will and society and coercion. Most christians and church people that I talk to are roped into it with emotional violence and mama-said bullshit obligatory pressure.

Oh, please, you buy into that "emotional violence" thing? That's the same argument the supreme court used to take away the speech rights of kids in public schools. You're no liberty activist if you hold that point of view. A christian is just as roped into it as you are roped into buying a car. If you feel like you need a car, then you will be sold on one by some random salesman who thinks you should get his car instead of someone else's. Who are you to decide what someone can buy without being "roped in". Since when is somebody violently coerced into believing something just because YOU think that their belief is not legitimate. That is hypocrisy, my friend, thinking you are the only one who has legitimate beliefs that aren't coerced.


lol seriously? You really need to investigate, whence comes want?

Uh, yeah, I really believe that. Tell me how priests steal without the other person's consent. If I'm wrong, prove it.


I am actually comparing Liberty people's treatment of priests vs police as collectivist groups

Why shouldn't liberty-minded people treat them differently? They are VERY different, as I have just demonstrated to you.

[DeMintConservative]

Because priests aren't agents of the state.

Collectivism by itself isn't bad. People cooperate, it's part of the human nature. There's nothing wrong with having a family. Playing basketball in a team.

The problem is the coercive power of the state.

Is there any problem with private security companies? Nope. You need security to enforce propriety rights.

I'm always amused by the amount of anti-corporations, anti-religion - in the sense of being opposed to basic principles of libertarianism/small-government conservativsm/minarchism/ancap/whatever you call it - .speech on these boards. It's a very good indicator that Ron Paul supporters aren't nearly as ideologically cohesive and enlightened as they're pictured to be.

[Mr. Perfidy]

So, in other words, you're a communist? If you don't believe there's a market, then what do you believe? Do you think someone should be able to willingly pay for something they want?

yes with the qualifer that no person can own and accept payment for things that they cannot claim to be the product of their own work- for example, a river.


If there is a market for cheeseburgers, and selling cheeseburgers is a legitimate market function,

see this is childish and simplistic thinking- in order for a cheeseburger to get to my plate first there has to be land-ownership that fences off a lot for cattle feeding and slaughter, there has to be transportation and refrigeration networks, railroads, power companies, etc. Our environment is saturated with govt coercion in all industries, so, this cheeseburger that you are acting like is some island of human freedom is really a consequence of research cartels, govt subsidies, and land-holding firms. Fuck all those things.



Oh, please, you buy into that "emotional violence" thing?

haha you dont have a woman? a mother? any elders at all?


That's the same argument the supreme court used to take away the speech rights of kids in public schools. You're no liberty activist if you hold that point of view. A christian is just as roped into it as you are roped into buying a car. If you feel like you need a car, then you will be sold on one by some random salesman who thinks you should get his car instead of someone else's. Who are you to decide what someone can buy without being "roped in". Since when is somebody violently coerced into believing something just because YOU think that their belief is not legitimate. That is hypocrisy, my friend, thinking you are the only one who has legitimate beliefs that aren't coerced.

well, as religious belief necessarily contradicts sensory perception, adherence to it must neceesarily involve some form of deception and surrender to authority in place of investigation with the senses.


Uh, yeah, I really believe that. Tell me how priests steal without the other person's consent. If I'm wrong, prove it.

they monopolize or otherwise cartelize a social position of moral authority

[DeMintConservative]

So it is not relevant to human freedom and constitutional government of a voluntary citizenry that if I put a cross out front, then my corporation can gamble in town, and without it, I cannot? No one gives a shit about the bible around here, but a lot of people love each other and want to have fun. The priests lobby to make this impossible. The people support them because of their ludicrous authoritarian loyalties to frozen forms of thought

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but special privileges shouldn't exist to any type of organization. But that's true for churches or Indian tribes or blacks or green companies or unionized workers or poor people or whatever special interest group you want to talk about. It doesnt' make churches especially worse than anyone else. The problem is the fact the government can give those privileges; humans being humans, of course people, individually or collectively, are going to seek them.

If no one gives a shit about the bible, then what's exactly the problem anyway?

[PaulConventionWV]

Ridiculous. Why does every Liberty person stop asking questions and investigating coercion the second someone uses the word "want?"

Maybe it's because nobody can prove your form of voodoo coercion that supposedly exists even though it's completely voluntary. What's even more hypocritical than liberty minded people doing that, however, is liberty-minded people thinking that somebody who willingly pays for something is being coerced simply because they wouldn't pay for it themselves, or because they don't believe what they're paying for is legitimate.


competing groups can't host bingo and have fairs

Competing groups as in competing churches? What are you talking about? If competing groups can't host bingos and have fairs, that is hurting them, not propping them up. That is limiting their ability to do things they want to do by force. How does that prop anyone up?


I will point out that if I had money and was dishonest, a good way to use it to extend my influence and connect its value to real social power would be to bury it in Church coffers. It creates protected spheres for the propertied classes.

That's ridiculous. The church doesn't have any power over you that it wouldn't have in a free society. Just because you don't believe in religion, that doesn't mean it doesn't have a place in a free society. What illegal activity do all churches do that extend influence? What police powers or immunity does the church have?

[PaulConventionWV]

only if your small business enjoyed arbitrary tax-free status and a host of social privileges that gave it unfair advantages to regulate and maintain culture

Oh, so you are arguing for a more fair tax system in which we all get stolen from equally? In other words, you are a socialist and a tax advocate. Gotcha.

[DeMintConservative]

Maybe it's because nobody can prove your form of voodoo coercion that supposedly exists even though it's completely voluntary. What's even more hypocritical than liberty minded people doing that, however, is liberty-minded people thinking that somebody who willingly pays for something is being coerced simply because they wouldn't pay for it themselves, or because they don't believe what they're paying for is legitimate.
«

Agreed.

[Mr. Perfidy]

If no one gives a shit about the bible, then what's exactly the problem anyway?

because they yet love their community and each other and freedom, and have a universal thirst to congregate in this spirit, but, are denied this outlet because the people and state understand this to be "religious" and so only grant such licensing/gaming privileges to the Cross.


Maybe it's because nobody can prove your form of voodoo coercion that supposedly exists even though it's completely voluntary.

so lemme re-state this, and you can tell me that this experience is not provable:

the christians that I know, for the most part, the main-streamers, speak in defense of their collective in weak and retreating tones and without reasonable science to back it up, as in, their "voluntary belief" is tethered to emotional dependence on this or that authority.



Competing groups as in competing churches? What are you talking about?

no as in competing social networks of like-minded individuals.


If competing groups can't host bingos and have fairs, that is hurting them, not propping them up. That is limiting their ability to do things they want to do by force. How does that prop anyone up?

the churches CAN do what they want, while other groups cannot. This props up the Church, which is empowered with social privileges and consequent capital advantages.


That's ridiculous. The church doesn't have any power over you that it wouldn't have in a free society.

ludicrous. There are a great many laws based only on christian or jewish prejudice against this or that behavior. The laws are supported by the churches, and the voters are mobilized to defend this policy by their religious leaders.


Just because you don't believe in religion, that doesn't mean it doesn't have a place in a free society.

no argument. We do not live in a free society though, therefore our institutions must not be free ones.

[PaulConventionWV]

You do realize there are strings attached to the tax free status right? Would Christ choose to congregate in organized "churches" which are clearly regulated by corrupt men or in a private open field where there are no such regulations? The problem is that there is a fallacy in many Christians minds that the "Church" equals Christianity. Does that same belief not condemn a Christian who follows the word the best they can and not go to church, yet praise and hold elaborate services for members of the military who murder their fellow man?

Sure, I'm no fan of the church. I don't even go to church, but it is something that would exist in a free market because there is a large demand for it. It's not fair to blame churches for jumping through the loopholes that government forms just so they can survive government taxation, and as a result, be more subjected to government control. The reason the government wants to control the church is because the church is the government's biggest opposition. Whoever thinks the church is some sort of favored class of the wealthy who are exercising state power by coercing others into believing in God is severely mistaken. They are simply another victim of government regulation. A booming market that is subject to government control because the government has a reason to want to control it.

[Mr. Perfidy]

Oh, so you are arguing for a more fair tax system in which we all get stolen from equally? In other words, you are a socialist and a tax advocate. Gotcha.

haha every single time I make a point that contradicts some kind of hallowed conservative image in this forum, people just fill in for me and say stupid crap that I do not advocate, and then retreat smugly into their confidence that of course their hallowed idolatry is correct.

My point is that you can protect your money by taking it and starting a church, and thereby use your capital to obtain social power while evading taxation. You can set up all kinds of non-profits, dole out jobs to your favored sycophants, dispatch fleets of vans and host retreats, but all only for the people that you deem worthy of such benefit. Fuck that too.

[DeMintConservative]

because they yet love their community and each other and freedom, and have a universal thirst to congregate in this spirit, but, are denied this outlet because the people and state understand this to be "religious" and so only grant such licensing/gaming privileges to the Cross.



What the heck are you talking about? Who are those people and what outlet are they denied?

[Mr. Perfidy]

the people who are generally unconcerned with traditional religious subordinate and yet love each other and freedom and wish to congregate in this spirit...lol I said already. I cannot go to my municipal governemt and say, "Yo the 3 villages (apartment complexes) have elected Festival Representation, and we want your cops to guide traffic to our party." They will not grant us such a permit. If I said, "Our church wants that," they would rubber stamp it.

[DeMintConservative]

I have a hard time believing there's a place in America where people are prohibited from congregating and participating in public reunions unless they're Christian. I suspect we'd have heard about it before.

[Mr. Perfidy]

I have a hard time believing there's a place in America where people are prohibited from congregating and participating in public reunions unless they're Christian

hahahahahaha you need to get out more

[PaulConventionWV]

yes with the qualifer that no person can own and accept payment for things that they cannot claim to be the product of their own work- for example, a river.

So you don't believe in ownership of land?


see this is childish and simplistic thinking- in order for a cheeseburger to get to my plate first there has to be land-ownership that fences off a lot for cattle feeding and slaughter, there has to be transportation and refrigeration networks, railroads, power companies, etc. Our environment is saturated with govt coercion in all industries, so, this cheeseburger that you are acting like is some island of human freedom is really a consequence of research cartels, govt subsidies, and land-holding firms. Fuck all those things.

Yes, fuck all those things. Fuck all the government regulations and subsidies that make cheeseburgers possible, I agree. The point is, the cheeseburger would still make to your plate regardless of whether all these regulations, taxes, and subsidies existed. So would religion.


haha you dont have a woman? a mother? any elders at all?

Yes, and I still don't believe in emotional violence. People can choose to react to things how they want. The state has no reason to involve themselves in the inner workings of the human brain. That would imply ownership and absolute knowledge of the working of the human psyche.

It's terrible of someone to try to hurt someone's feelings, but that doesn't mean it should be a crime, and that doesn't mean it's coercion. It's another form of persuasion, although a darker form of persuasion. Persuasion to believe that which someone does not want to believe. It's still the person's choice, however, to make a rational decision what to believe regardless of all this persuasion.

well, as religious belief necessarily contradicts sensory perception, adherence to it must neceesarily involve some form of deception and surrender to authority in place of investigation with the senses.


they monopolize or otherwise cartelize a social position of moral authority

As noted above, priests have no state authority. They have no police powers, no justification for the use of force or involuntary taxation, so your argument is moot.

[Mr. Perfidy]

So you don't believe in ownership of land?

no not really. No one has ever convinced me how it is not just inherited from royalist coercion.


Yes, fuck all those things. Fuck all the government regulations and subsidies that make cheeseburgers possible, I agree. The point is, the cheeseburger would still make to your plate regardless of whether all these regulations, taxes, and subsidies existed. So would religion.

well, again, first of all- the point of starting this thread was to illustrate the collectivst tendencies in the Liberty movement, and contrast one type (near universally condemning cops) to another type (my suspected near-universal defense of priests)

I have no problem with religion- we are not talking about that. We are talking about a present class of specialists who operate in a religious market that is heavily controlled and affected by coercion, be it political or personal.



Yes, and I still don't believe in emotional violence. People can choose to react to things how they want. The state has no reason to involve themselves in the inner workings of the human brain. That would imply ownership and absolute knowledge of the working of the human psyche.

why do you offer State involvement as a quality of emotional violence? Did I say anything about this relationship between emotions and government? I am only saying that what a lot of us are calling "voluntary" really just lacks a visible gun in the face- there is still coercion behind these decisions. I have said this before in other threads and nobody does anything but blink or foam: causing an individual to fear for their social status is a form of violence. It is a common tactic employed by parents and other leaders to force obedience and conformity.


It's terrible of someone to try to hurt someone's feelings, but that doesn't mean it should be a crime, and that doesn't mean it's coercion. It's another form of persuasion, although a darker form of persuasion.

lol


As noted above, priests have no state authority.

untrue. They can head up corporations that enjoy special privileges inaccessible to the regular citizenry, privileges that confer on them advantageous positions regarding resource-allocation and social capital.

[The Free Hornet]

A cheap swipe at priests is one more reason why libertarian collectivism is a reality.

What the fuck are you talking about? Sounds like a cheap swipe at many people here. You are fighting a false generalization ("Everything that you say about the cops, regarding their voluntary subordination to the occupying authority, is true of priests.") with a false generalization.


First of all, religion is a CHOICE; being hassled by overlords is not.

The one Catholic priest I know was sent to the seminary after 8th grade. He is OK with the profession now and could choose not to continue. Growing up, there was no choice for us not to attend to church. We have choice as adults and as children could choose not to like it or rebel.


Second, most clergy sacrifice a great deal for the good of their flock; many have only the bare essentials because they believe in what they are doing.

I can't speak to the degree of sacrifice but the priest I know works in a poor community where k-8 education is critical and so is elder care. He has a 401k (AFAIK) or similar retirement funds as his dioceses doesn't do the poverty vow. As such, he is not entirely unconcerned with the state of the economy as well as "the flock".

As an atheist, I approve of this thread if only to clear up the occasional misconceptions. I like the top post, but it is not reflective of every libertarian or every atheist or every libertarian atheist.

[erowe1]

well, again, first of all- the point of starting this thread was to illustrate the collectivst tendencies in the Liberty movement, and contrast one type (near universally condemning cops) to another type (my suspected near-universal defense of priests)

For what it's worth, I don't buy that there's near universal condemnation of cops. I think there's a vocal contingent who thinks there's no such thing as a good cop. But I doubt they're the majority. They're just zealous enough about that belief that the rest of us don't feel like arguing with them about it.

Plus, a lot of the condemnation of cops I see doesn't follow the "no such thing as a good cop" line. It's mainly just pointing out cases of cops abusing their authority, which the rest of us can condemn just as much as the "no such thing as a good cop" people can.

[libertygrl]

Yeah I agree that the libel "collectivist" is typically used in a collectivist fashion to deflect from images and reputations that Libertarians are trying to de-emphasize and discard.

I also believe though that what we call religion in america is shameless profiteering on the ignorance and insecurity of weak minds.

As a Christian, I've learned to separate "organized" religion from spirituality and the teachings of Jesus. I agree that there is definitely profiteering on what is called religion today as well as false doctrines being taught. Specifically within Christian churches. Case in point, I heard an interview the other day where evangelical leaders are actually receiving big bucks for their ministries from Israel, in return for teaching their congregations to be pro-israel/zionist. I think it was Pastor Texe Marrs who said he was talking to another Pastor who told him all he had to do was go over to Israel and tell them how much he loves the Jewish people and they will throw alot of money his way for his ministry. Marrs said he walked away feeling sick to his stomach.

Now it all makes sense why those so called conservative Christians booed Ron Paul at the Republican Primary when he advocated living by the Golden Rule when it comes to our foreign policy. They are being indoctrinated with lies and deceit. If you're a Christian, listen to this guy Hagee. I can't believe what is coming out of his mouth. He's a Christian Pastor actually denying that Christ was the Messiah:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVp5DVTzFsk

These Pastors are also using a false reference bible that was rewritten to conform with Zionist principles:

World Zionist leaders initiated a program to change America and its religious orientation. One of the tools used to accomplish this goal was an obscure and malleable Civil War veteran named Cyrus I. Schofield. A much larger tool was a venerable, world respected European book publisher--The Oxford University Press.

The scheme was to alter the Christian view of Zionism by creating and promoting a pro-Zionist subculture within Christianity. Scofield's role was to re-write the King James Version of the Bible by inserting Zionist-friendly notes in the margins, between verses and chapters, and on the bottoms of the pages. The Oxford University Press used Scofield, a pastor by then, as the Editor, probably because it needed such as man for a front. The revised bible was called the Scofield Reference Bible, and with limitless advertising and promotion, it became a best-selling "bible" in America and has remained so for 90 years.

h ttp://rense.com/general60/zcre.htm

This is truly frightening. These Christian Zionists who are so scared of Obama destroying America because they believe him to be a Communist or Socialist, are they themselves, ushering in the very things they fear - and worse! If they would only wake up, we'd all be better for it.

[seyferjm]

Just listening to Hagee's voice makes me feel sick

[heavenlyboy34]

Right, because priests go around killing people's dogs all the time.

Dude, you cannot be serious. Unlike the police, priests are a legitimate market function. Believe it or not, people WANT to hear from someone who's studied the word of God and relate their findings to them. Not to mention that churches offer more than just preaching. They offer getaways, Sunday school to occupy the kids, and oh, guess what, they only preach to people who WANT to be preached to. Nobody's forcing you to pay for that guy's house and life. If you don't want to pay for it, DON'T GO TO CHURCH!

Police, unlike priests, are power-hungry animals who beat, maim and steal from citizens simply because they have the state's authority to do so. Priests do not do that. They take only what people are willing to give. The Catholic Church is a whole different kind of sneaky because they, in the past, were actually a part of the state in Europe, so that led to a whole bunch of comorbidization with the state's theft habits. In this society, however, all religions are voluntary, being beaten and arrested by the police is not.

That's why they're not the same thing, and the fact that you didn't already know this means you are a very, very, very, VERY stupid person. I'm sorry, but this is the first time I've actually felt justified in calling someone stupid because, in this case, it is true. How can you call yourself a liberty activist when you hate voluntary organizations for being exactly like the police when, in fact, they are almost the complete opposite? Priests don't get paid with taxpayer money. Priests normally aren't assholes to their congregations, unless, of course, their congregation happens to be into that kind of thing.

The point is, don't make an ass out of yourself by comparing priests to police. If you are really that stupid, try to hide it.
Thread winner ^^

[PaulConventionWV]

because they yet love their community and each other and freedom, and have a universal thirst to congregate in this spirit, but, are denied this outlet because the people and state understand this to be "religious" and so only grant such licensing/gaming privileges to the Cross.



so lemme re-state this, and you can tell me that this experience is not provable:

the christians that I know, for the most part, the main-streamers, speak in defense of their collective in weak and retreating tones and without reasonable science to back it up, as in, their "voluntary belief" is tethered to emotional dependence on this or that authority.




no as in competing social networks of like-minded individuals.



the churches CAN do what they want, while other groups cannot. This props up the Church, which is empowered with social privileges and consequent capital advantages.



ludicrous. There are a great many laws based only on christian or jewish prejudice against this or that behavior. The laws are supported by the churches, and the voters are mobilized to defend this policy by their religious leaders.



no argument. We do not live in a free society though, therefore our institutions must not be free ones.

Your mistake is that you think the churches having a miniscule amount of freedom that you don't have is the same as the church having power. You blame the church when you should really be blaming the government. The government makes them jump through these hoops. You can't blame them for wanting this freedom and jumping through the hoops. The only reason they do it is so they get stolen from less (tax breaks). That's not power, that's being a victim of state authority, like a dog that gets a treat when he is good.

The point is that this is not the priest's fault. This is the government's fault. The priests would still be there with or without the government just like cheeseburgers would still be there with or without the government. Sure, there are some laws based on christian morality, but then again most atheists hold some form of christian morality as well, such as not stealing and not murdering. You can't blame the church for that.

Another mistake you make is generalizing and collectivizing the religious sheep who defend their collective without recognizing that atheists do this as well. There's nothing inherently wrong with trying to defend a collective. The Randian cult used to preach individuality and rationality, and yet they were some of the most blind sheeple because they falsely believed that they were enlightened and independent. Don't fall into the trap of thinking you are immune to herd mentality. I'm not defending it, but that doesn't mean all, most, or even more christians are like that. Even if they were, that by itself wouldn't tell us what a real christian was supposed to be like. Preachers are free to preach what they want and people are free to listen or not listen. This is the epitome of a free society, so stop acting like it is even comparable to police. They are about the most different things you can get.

We do not live in a free society, and our institutions are not free ones, but does that mean you criticize every business for not being free? It's the government's fault. The absence of freedom doesn't illegitimate all groups and businesses.

[PaulConventionWV]

haha every single time I make a point that contradicts some kind of hallowed conservative image in this forum, people just fill in for me and say stupid crap that I do not advocate, and then retreat smugly into their confidence that of course their hallowed idolatry is correct.

Or maybe you're just not explaining yourself very well. Ever think of that? What you do is retreat into your own preconceived infallibility and avoid all fault. By what you said, I really did think you believed that.


My point is that you can protect your money by taking it and starting a church, and thereby use your capital to obtain social power while evading taxation. You can set up all kinds of non-profits, dole out jobs to your favored sycophants, dispatch fleets of vans and host retreats, but all only for the people that you deem worthy of such benefit. Fuck that too.

Ok, I'm sure the upper management people in Wal Mart can do that too. The clergymen may be able to live a nice life, but they don't have any social power over you. Only the state does. So stop pretending like the church is this great social evil when all it's doing is being victimized by the state. It's not just a church thing, so don't demonize them just because you have a philosophical bone to pick.

[PaulConventionWV]

no not really. No one has ever convinced me how it is not just inherited from royalist coercion.



well, again, first of all- the point of starting this thread was to illustrate the collectivst tendencies in the Liberty movement, and contrast one type (near universally condemning cops) to another type (my suspected near-universal defense of priests)

I have no problem with religion- we are not talking about that. We are talking about a present class of specialists who operate in a religious market that is heavily controlled and affected by coercion, be it political or personal.



why do you offer State involvement as a quality of emotional violence? Did I say anything about this relationship between emotions and government? I am only saying that what a lot of us are calling "voluntary" really just lacks a visible gun in the face- there is still coercion behind these decisions. I have said this before in other threads and nobody does anything but blink or foam: causing an individual to fear for their social status is a form of violence. It is a common tactic employed by parents and other leaders to force obedience and conformity.



lol



untrue. They can head up corporations that enjoy special privileges inaccessible to the regular citizenry, privileges that confer on them advantageous positions regarding resource-allocation and social capital.

And my point is that priests and cops are not even comparable. They are so far apart that it is illogical to even attempt to introduce them with the intent of comparing any consequence of their existence.

You may laugh at me saying emotional violence is really just persuasion, but no matter what way you look at it, it's observably true. Just because you think there is some magical brain switch that somebody else can control remotely, that doesn't mean that's what happens. If someone tries to get you to believe something without physically forcing or torturing, then you are still free to make up your own mind. That means the person doing the convincing is using persuasion, not violence, because the receiver is still autonomous and still has control of his or her own mind. Your magical form of voodoo mental coercion is not observable, and so I'm not inclined to think it exists.

After all, if somebody can convince you using logic, why can't they convince you using emotions? These are all different kinds of persuasion: pathos, ethos, and logos. What makes logical persuasion NOT coercion when emotional persuasion, according to you, IS coercion? What's the difference?

[PaulConventionWV]

For what it's worth, I don't buy that there's near universal condemnation of cops. I think there's a vocal contingent who thinks there's no such thing as a good cop. But I doubt they're the majority. They're just zealous enough about that belief that the rest of us don't feel like arguing with them about it.

Plus, a lot of the condemnation of cops I see doesn't follow the "no such thing as a good cop" line. It's mainly just pointing out cases of cops abusing their authority, which the rest of us can condemn just as much as the "no such thing as a good cop" people can.

I often tend to behave like a "no such thing as a good cop" person, and there are certain parts of it that are true, but in their intentions, I know there are many that I can trust to simply be people and not always be cruel beasts. They aren't evil, just misled. Even though I'll vocally speak out against cop abuse and say that there is no venue for the cop to enforce the law and still be a freedom-loving individual, I recognize that some of them truly do think they're doing good for the community.

[Mr. Perfidy]

haha oh boy...


I am so glad that I gave you cats some time to post for a little while; sitting down with so much argument to hash out and thrash, I feel like roman generals must have upon returning to north africa to burn carthage a final time.


Your mistake is that you think the churches having a miniscule amount of freedom that you don't have is the same as the church having power. You blame the church when you should really be blaming the government. The government makes them jump through these hoops. You can't blame them for wanting this freedom and jumping through the hoops. The only reason they do it is so they get stolen from less (tax breaks). That's not power, that's being a victim of state authority, like a dog that gets a treat when he is good.

yes so as with the collectivism as it relates to cops, we must ask: "what sort of man, knowing this to be the legal environment then says, 'praise the lord- I can't wait to be a preacher!"? A lying, dishonest, profiteering one. A holy man would just be moved by his respective gospel, and go into the world with loving kindness. An opportunist, who percieves that people are ignorant and gullible and thirst for something spiritual, scans the regulatory horizon and concludes- ahh that masonic tower with pews is my where my power is waiting!

also I think that you are proving my point (remember, as everyone keeps ignoring- my original point was only to demonstrate that some of the same people arguing against collectivist treatment of the police will treat the priests collectively) So, here you are in this thread talking about "the church" doing things, and not individual men and women. Men and women who must necessarily be intelligent enough to have some grasp of how the State dominates the Church, but wanna suckle at at that clerical titty anyway.


The point is that this is not the priest's fault. This is the government's fault. The priests would still be there with or without the government just like cheeseburgers would still be there with or without the government.

I do not believe this to be true- surely there would be holy men and preachers and teachers of the gospel, but there would not be monuments of wealth and prestige (anti-christian concepts) without the State creating wealth-havens for opportunistic charlatans, and their well-meaning but dull and trusting disciples.


Sure, there are some laws based on christian morality, but then again most atheists hold some form of christian morality as well, such as not stealing and not murdering. You can't blame the church for that.

Well, there are prohibitions against stealing and murdering everywhere in the world; it is a property of humanity that we seek harmonious relationships with each other. But there are a great many specifically christian intrustions into my life via the State, that only have any support because of the shit-eating windbag deceiver priest class and the enormous wealth that they control.


Another mistake you make is generalizing and collectivizing the religious sheep who defend their collective without recognizing that atheists do this as well. There's nothing inherently wrong with trying to defend a collective. The Randian cult used to preach individuality and rationality, and yet they were some of the most blind sheeple because they falsely believed that they were enlightened and independent. Don't fall into the trap of thinking you are immune to herd mentality. I'm not defending it, but that doesn't mean all, most, or even more christians are like that. Even if they were, that by itself wouldn't tell us what a real christian was supposed to be like. Preachers are free to preach what they want and people are free to listen or not listen. This is the epitome of a free society, so stop acting like it is even comparable to police. They are about the most different things you can get.

again- it is only the rather mediocre intellects present in this thread that keep equating the priests to the police; I only meant that they are both collectives, and seek to demonstrate that Liberty people will treat them as such. And I said my opinion of the priests, as a man who understand that god and love are not things for which you need a seminary degree and fuckin paycheck! to understand and advance for mankind.


We do not live in a free society, and our institutions are not free ones, but does that mean you criticize every business for not being free? It's the government's fault. The absence of freedom doesn't illegitimate all groups and businesses.

well, much like how the people who become policemen do so knowing that they will enforce unjust laws, the people who become preachers do so knowing the State's limitations on their church!

My neighbor behind the old house (moved out last year) is a christian family man; he uses his home to host bible-studies and worship services, has a garage that he turned into a recording studio to produce/celebrate with worship music. No one cuts him a check. He has no title to designate him as some social rank associated with State-sanctioned religious/corporate privileges. He just loves his family and jesus and practices accordingly. He loved jesus and reads the bible and likes preaching and discussing things, and yet, he surveys land for his own company. Something about him, despite being inclined toward religious devotional leadership was DISINCLINED to participate in the organized mockery. Probably this very quality is what makes him a good man, and the absence of it is what characterizes the pharisees we are here calling priests.

[Mr. Perfidy]

lol isnt romney a bishop? case cloooooooooosed

[Mr. Perfidy]

Ok, I'm sure the upper management people in Wal Mart can do that too. by do that he means: My point is that you can protect your money by taking it and starting a church, and thereby use your capital to obtain social power while evading taxation. You can set up all kinds of non-profits, dole out jobs to your favored sycophants, dispatch fleets of vans and host retreats, but all only for the people that you deem worthy of such benefit

which IS MY POINT!!!! Why unless I am getting close to the truth would you be defending as good the fact that PRIESTS and SLAVE PROFITEERS enjoy similar lifestyles and powers of wealth?!?!?!?!?!?!



The clergymen may be able to live a nice life, but they don't have any social power over you. Only the state does.

oh my god- coming to these forums actually makes me respect DHS for classifying anti-government people as dangerous extremists- do you really think that only the State has power?! You are telling me that some United Methodist (whatever they call their leaders) in NJ, and his retinue of subordinate priests, have no more influence over public policy than I do? Do you hear yourself?!


And my point is that priests and cops are not even comparable. They are so far apart that it is illogical to even attempt to introduce them with the intent of comparing any consequence of their existence.

both provide a service that is heavily regulated by the State to the advantage of their own unions/organizations/specialists at the expense of the people, among whom there are a reliable number of people daily GIVING AWAY THAT SAME SERVICE only because they are happy to contribute to making people around them safe, dignified and right with creation. BAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!


You may laugh at me saying emotional violence is really just persuasion, but no matter what way you look at it, it's observably true. Just because you think there is some magical brain switch that somebody else can control remotely, that doesn't mean that's what happens.

yeah it's called a fight-or-flight response, limbic system, reptile brain, whatever- I would even wager that the electricity moving through it looks similar to things we use with switches.

example: witholding food as punishment in home.
silent-treatment
harsh criticism in public situations

that all sets off alarms of panic and impending harm and affects your bio-chemistry perhaps even MORE EFFECTIVELY AS A THREAT than just a regular ol punch. For example- I am scared of how bad my wife will make me feel if I have sex with another woman, and yet, doing so might literally sick violent men on me (let's say her brother for example) I am more afraid of how negatively my gut will twist and penis will wither under her hurt and vengeful gaze than I am of a fist.


If someone tries to get you to believe something without physically forcing or torturing, then you are still free to make up your own mind.

I think now that maybe I should be pitying you, because it seems like you are trying to legitimize and defend behavior that is obviously coercive, malevolent, vile and negative, so, I would bet now that your own parents or wife or whatever is a psycho-erotic warfare sorceress that tortures you emotionally. But hey- it doesn't leave a bruise. It must not be violent.


That means the person doing the convincing is using persuasion, not violence, because the receiver is still autonomous and still has control of his or her own mind. Your magical form of voodoo mental coercion is not observable, and so I'm not inclined to think it exists.

it is in fact observable, actually, as neuro-electricity and bio-chemical output.

ok how about this:

let's say a certain poster's fam was run outta broooklyn because his father refused to lose a stickball game to a local mafioso, so, in retalliation, the poster's father's home was broken into, vandalized and robbed, and had the front door stolen. Broken shit- ohhh no, not my stuff. MISSING MOTHERFUCKIN FRONT DOOR!?! That's like a chilling terroristic threat. And yet nobody got smacked.


After all, if somebody can convince you using logic, why can't they convince you using emotions? These are all different kinds of persuasion: pathos, ethos, and logos. What makes logical persuasion NOT coercion when emotional persuasion, according to you, IS coercion?

all deception is coercion, as is all social expressions meant to threaten imposition or impose on an individual a state of social demotion, exclusion, and outsider status.

haha how are you arguing that making a kid feel like his parents don't love him, or a teenager that nobody will fuck him, or an adult that no one will ever trust him, is not violent?! You must have a real suck ass home life man, and I actually am very sorry.

[PaulConventionWV]

haha oh boy...

yes so as with the collectivism as it relates to cops, we must ask: "what sort of man, knowing this to be the legal environment then says, 'praise the lord- I can't wait to be a preacher!"? A lying, dishonest, profiteering one. A holy man would just be moved by his respective gospel, and go into the world with loving kindness. An opportunist, who percieves that people are ignorant and gullible and thirst for something spiritual, scans the regulatory horizon and concludes- ahh that masonic tower with pews is my where my power is waiting!

What power? He doesn't have any power over YOU as an individual. He may have some power over people that trust him, but that's just because they made the choice to trust him. They can unlearn that trust or decide to stop trusting him just as easily if he does something they don't approve of. Priests do not have state authority and they don't have any policing powers. All they have is the power of persuasion, which is a legitimate power to have. That's like a car salesman has the power to sell you a car that comes from his dealership. Eventually, you're going to meet a salesman and he's going to sell you something, so don't act like you're better than people who choose to go to church because they believe in the message that the preacher is selling them. More often than not, people go there because they already believe the priest, not because he gave them a big long sales pitch on how they should come to his church. They wanted to go to church because they wanted to interact with people of the same beliefs. What's so bad about that?


also I think that you are proving my point (remember, as everyone keeps ignoring- my original point was only to demonstrate that some of the same people arguing against collectivist treatment of the police will treat the priests collectively) So, here you are in this thread talking about "the church" doing things, and not individual men and women. Men and women who must necessarily be intelligent enough to have some grasp of how the State dominates the Church, but wanna suckle at at that clerical titty anyway.

I think you meant to say people arguing for the collectivist treatment of police will not argue for the collectivist treatment of priests. I have asked you repeatedly why they should. Police and priests are not similar at all, so why should they be collectivized like police? Just because they have the same profession? That's like saying you should collectivize plumbers. It doesn't mean anything because plumbers and priests are way different from police. There are absolutely no similarities to suggest that I should treat them the same in any way.


I do not believe this to be true- surely there would be holy men and preachers and teachers of the gospel, but there would not be monuments of wealth and prestige (anti-christian concepts) without the State creating wealth-havens for opportunistic charlatans, and their well-meaning but dull and trusting disciples.

You don't know how it would be in a free market, but my point is that they would still be there in one form or fashion. Would these people still be "dull"? Maybe so, but there are many atheists who are just as dull and set in their ways, so don't act like the church is a scourge of the earth because they get tax breaks and the people are dull. Atheists are dull, too. It's not just a christian thing. If people want to congregate to talk about Christ with their holy men, it's only natural that they would want to meet in the same place and have a roof over their heads while they do so. The church doesn't symbolize any authority over you. They just get a few tax breaks. They are victims of the government, not perpetrators of arbitrary power. They are no different from believers in liberty who may have meetups to talk about what they believe.


Well, there are prohibitions against stealing and murdering everywhere in the world; it is a property of humanity that we seek harmonious relationships with each other. But there are a great many specifically christian intrustions into my life via the State, that only have any support because of the shit-eating windbag deceiver priest class and the enormous wealth that they control.

Atheists support atheist initiatives, too. It's wrong in both cases, so I don't see why the priests are a special kind of wrong just because they have people who listen to them. Atheists tend to listen to other atheists, too. Atheists like Richard Dawkins preach all over the world and have many followers who believe in what he says even though, many times, it doesn't even make sense. You're trying to pin some kind of special stupidity on christians that actually exists in all of humanity regardless of what religion they follow.


again- it is only the rather mediocre intellects present in this thread that keep equating the priests to the police; I only meant that they are both collectives, and seek to demonstrate that Liberty people will treat them as such. And I said my opinion of the priests, as a man who understand that god and love are not things for which you need a seminary degree and fuckin paycheck! to understand and advance for mankind.

You are the one who compared them, not me. You said, JUST LIKE POLICE, priests are a collective. Why would you introduce police into the equation if they don't have anything to do with each other? Priests are not a collective like police because they don't have a badge and they don't all operate under the same authority. Perhaps they should, but that's a different theological debate. The point is that priests are free to preach what they want, not so with police. People voluntarily give money to the church, so why is it any of your business if people want to support the priest by giving money to it? This isn't like ancient Europe where the Catholic church was part of the state.


well, much like how the people who become policemen do so knowing that they will enforce unjust laws, the people who become preachers do so knowing the State's limitations on their church!

So you ARE trying to compare the two? Your comparison doesn't even make sense. If the state limits their church, that doesn't mean the priest should stop trying to preach if that is his life's calling. He's not enforcing any unjust laws, so there's really no comparison between the two. The priest isn't forcing anyone to do anything, but the police are.


My neighbor behind the old house (moved out last year) is a christian family man; he uses his home to host bible-studies and worship services, has a garage that he turned into a recording studio to produce/celebrate with worship music. No one cuts him a check. He has no title to designate him as some social rank associated with State-sanctioned religious/corporate privileges. He just loves his family and jesus and practices accordingly. He loved jesus and reads the bible and likes preaching and discussing things, and yet, he surveys land for his own company. Something about him, despite being inclined toward religious devotional leadership was DISINCLINED to participate in the organized mockery. Probably this very quality is what makes him a good man, and the absence of it is what characterizes the pharisees we are here calling priests.

That's his choice. If people want to donate money, that's their choice. Regardless of whether the state is involved or not, everything priests do is voluntary, so the only difference between him and a priest is that he doesn't accept voluntary donations. He's free not to just like the priest is free to accept donations. You may not like it, and he may not like it, and I may not like it, but that doesn't mean all priests are collectively evil for accepting donations. Some of them may have bad intentions, but those exist in any business. As I have noted, many priests do everything they can not to profit from preaching. Not all priests have bad intentions, and it's not their fault that the state is meddling in the church.

[PaulConventionWV]

which IS MY POINT!!!! Why unless I am getting close to the truth would you be defending as good the fact that PRIESTS and SLAVE PROFITEERS enjoy similar lifestyles and powers of wealth?!?!?!?!?!?!

Except they're not the same. Priests are not like slave profiteers because they don't enslave anyone. Case cloooosed.


oh my god- coming to these forums actually makes me respect DHS for classifying anti-government people as dangerous extremists- do you really think that only the State has power?! You are telling me that some United Methodist (whatever they call their leaders) in NJ, and his retinue of subordinate priests, have no more influence over public policy than I do? Do you hear yourself?!

Yes, I do. Priests don't have any more power over public policy than you do. Only the state has power. The state is the one that enacts the laws. You can't blame the church because the state chooses to enact laws that happen to reflect what some priests might believe. That doesn't mean the priests caused those laws to be enacted. The state enacted those laws because it supported the state's interests, not because it supported the churches interests.


both provide a service that is heavily regulated by the State to the advantage of their own unions/organizations/specialists at the expense of the people, among whom there are a reliable number of people daily GIVING AWAY THAT SAME SERVICE only because they are happy to contribute to making people around them safe, dignified and right with creation. BAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!

At the expense of the people? What taxes are we paying to support the church? Are you okay? You seem to be getting a little worked up. What was that whole bam! thing for? Also, police give no service. Priests do. People associate themselves with the church voluntarily, they don't do so voluntarily with police. It's just staggering how you can't see the difference here.


yeah it's called a fight-or-flight response, limbic system, reptile brain, whatever- I would even wager that the electricity moving through it looks similar to things we use with switches.

example: witholding food as punishment in home.
silent-treatment
harsh criticism in public situations

If this exists in Christian minds, then it exists in atheist minds, too, and they do exploit it. Either way, though, it's still just persuasion, and I have the choice whether I want to reject it or accept it because I am autonomous. If you want to say that this is force, then prove it.


that all sets off alarms of panic and impending harm and affects your bio-chemistry perhaps even MORE EFFECTIVELY AS A THREAT than just a regular ol punch. For example- I am scared of how bad my wife will make me feel if I have sex with another woman, and yet, doing so might literally sick violent men on me (let's say her brother for example) I am more afraid of how negatively my gut will twist and penis will wither under her hurt and vengeful gaze than I am of a fist.

It's still your choice how to respond. If you respond in a way that supports your interest in survival, more power to you. That doesn't mean it's coercion. There are many times in a man's life when he chooses between something that is good for him and something that he believes is right. Men have made both decisions. It doesn't matter why. It just matters that they made the decision. How someone influences you is entirely up to you. You can either let them influence you or you can disassociate yourself from them. No emotional influence is coercion just because of the damned fight or flight response. If this kind of coercion happens in Christian minds, then it happens in atheist minds, too, so why are you ragging on christians and priests for it? There are atheists who will exercise the same influence and persuasion.


I think now that maybe I should be pitying you, because it seems like you are trying to legitimize and defend behavior that is obviously coercive, malevolent, vile and negative, so, I would bet now that your own parents or wife or whatever is a psycho-erotic warfare sorceress that tortures you emotionally. But hey- it doesn't leave a bruise. It must not be violent.

Yeah, if some witch is trying to influence you in ways you don't want, why don't you just leave? If she is influencing you in ways you want, then who am I to tell you you can't associate with her? Nobody is forcing people to listen to these priests. They do so because they already had the urge to seek spirituality. Just because they do so in ways that are not legitimate, that doesn't mean it was coercive. They voluntarily gave themselves over to that influence much like a man will sometimes give himself over to the influence of a woman. It's not coercive, it's just really damned tempting. They're not the same thing, and it's not "obviously coercive." If it really is coercion, then why shouldn't it be outlawed like other forms of coercion? Why the double standard?


it is in fact observable, actually, as neuro-electricity and bio-chemical output.

The effects on the brain are observable, but the effects on freedom of choice are not observable. You still have the ability to choose no matter how strong the influence is. It's very possible to quit smoking even though the cigarette has a strong influence on the brain. You can still choose.


ok how about this:

let's say a certain poster's fam was run outta broooklyn because his father refused to lose a stickball game to a local mafioso, so, in retalliation, the poster's father's home was broken into, vandalized and robbed, and had the front door stolen. Broken shit- ohhh no, not my stuff. MISSING MOTHERFUCKIN FRONT DOOR!?! That's like a chilling terroristic threat. And yet nobody got smacked.

It was destruction of property, so yes, it was coercive in the real world. You shouldn't be allowed to destroy someone's property if they don't want you to. They also stole, which is coercive as well. And guess what, none of this happens in the church. Everything that goes on in the church is voluntary. As soon as you can show me a priest who starts stealing things from their people and threatening them if they say anything, then I will agree with you that that specific preacher should be arrested. Even if one preacher did that, though, would that prove that all preachers are part of the same collective that does that?


all deception is coercion, as is all social expressions meant to threaten imposition or impose on an individual a state of social demotion, exclusion, and outsider status.

haha how are you arguing that making a kid feel like his parents don't love him, or a teenager that nobody will fuck him, or an adult that no one will ever trust him, is not violent?! You must have a real suck ass home life man, and I actually am very sorry.

Deception is coercive? People go through all kinds of hate and challenges from bad people in their life, and it's wrong to use deception, but that doesn't mean it's coercive. You don't have to believe someone. If you don't trust them, then investigate and find out if what they say is true. It is still your choice to associate and trust whomever you want, and if you make the wrong choice, well, it was still your choice and I don't have any pity on someone who trusts someone who is untrustworthy.

If deception is coercive, then why shouldn't people be arrested for deception like they are arrested for stealing or beating someone?

I don't get how you can make these conclusions about my home life. If you are trying to make me feel bad about myself, isn't that coercive? Aren't you trying to coerce me right now? Well, guess what it's not working because I still have the choice not to listen to you, and I very often don't because I can see that you are deceived yourself.

[Philhelm]

How could anyone not like priests? They get a solid d8 hit points, can use any armor, can cast divine spells while wearing armor, can turn undead...I mean, seriously, what a deal!

P.S. There is less voluntary action when encountering cops, not to mention that priests typically aren't armed to the teeth as a rule. If I tell a priest to "fuck off" I am not significantly increasing my chances of getting seriously injured.

[Mr. Perfidy]

ok can we please stop arguing about whether or not priests and cops are similar- that was not my assertion, and yet people keep arguing as though it was. My point was that they are alike only in that they are both a collective; I had a theory, that the same people who argue AGAINST collectively condemning the Police would collectively DEFEND the priests. Then I said stuff to invite such a collective defense.

of course I do stand by what I said of the priests, because again, like cops- what sort of person, knowing that their profession is heavily regulated by the State and stomped upon, decides to enter it anyway? It is not like you need to be a priest to preach the gospel or spread the message of jesus or whomever else. You become a priest in an institution for the money and the status.

[Mr. Perfidy]

What power? He doesn't have any power over YOU as an individual. He may have some power over people that trust him

who are a multitude, who vote for politicians that promise policies that reflect their own morality. For example- the christian right is stopping me from openly getting high outside in public. The priests lobby against my freedom and their followers vote to support them.


, but that's just because they made the choice to trust him.

lambert's a wild and wooly sheep! haha you sound ridiculous man, for real.


They can unlearn that trust or decide to stop trusting him just as easily if he does something they don't approve of. Priests do not have state authority and they don't have any policing powers.

this point isn't what I meant to introduce, but, it is appropriate to mention- aren't there many church-run programs like rehab/halfway houses that are notorious abuse-factories?

but even absent them- again, you are just evading the issue- the priests have followers. They advise their followers regarding social policy. Social policy becomes Law. Law is force used against my freedom. So, if the priests are advising coercive social policy, they are my enemy, and are inciting violence against me.


All they have is the power of persuasion, which is a legitimate power to have. That's like a car salesman has the power to sell you a car that comes from his dealership. Eventually, you're going to meet a salesman and he's going to sell you something, so don't act like you're better than people who choose to go to church because they believe in the message that the preacher is selling them. More often than not, people go there because they already believe the priest, not because he gave them a big long sales pitch on how they should come to his church. They wanted to go to church because they wanted to interact with people of the same beliefs. What's so bad about that?

those beliefs come from an agent of coercion and deception?

haha I am not an enemy of the institution of religion; I would like to see MORE RELIGION EVERYWHERE. But the churches as they exist now are state-sponsored capital-havens where social policy is leaked and field-tested and advanced with bullshit. I'm sorry, with "persuasion."




I think you meant to say people arguing for the collectivist treatment of police will not argue for the collectivist treatment of priests. I have asked you repeatedly why they should. Police and priests are not similar at all, so why should they be collectivized like police? Just because they have the same profession? That's like saying you should collectivize plumbers. It doesn't mean anything because plumbers and priests are way different from police. There are absolutely no similarities to suggest that I should treat them the same in any way.

no. One more time I guess: people in the Collectivism and Cops thread argued against the collectivist treatment of the police. I wanted to see what collectivist memes would speak about the priesthood.




You don't know how it would be in a free market,

well I like drugs, so, yes I do, because the drug market that happens behind the watchful eye of the State and its regulations and enforcement is free. Filled with fuckin assholes and gangsters, but free.


but my point is that they would still be there in one form or fashion. Would these people still be "dull"? Maybe so, but there are many atheists who are just as dull and set in their ways

perfect! Collectivist alarm! Why would you mention atheists except to invoke some kind of enemy image around which to rally the faithful of your own collective? Weak


So you ARE trying to compare the two?

only as a thought-excercise, because of your continual prodding invitations to do so. And my comparison is fuckin gooooooolden so don't even try to step to me.


Your comparison doesn't even make sense. If the state limits their church, that doesn't mean the priest should stop trying to preach if that is his life's calling. He's not enforcing any unjust laws, so there's really no comparison between the two. The priest isn't forcing anyone to do anything, but the police are.

again, you just totally missed the point. I am going to just repost my Comparitive Diagnosis of the 2 classes:
both provide a service that is heavily regulated by the State to the advantage of their own unions/organizations/specialists at the expense of the people, among whom there are a reliable number of people daily GIVING AWAY THAT SAME SERVICE only because they are happy to contribute to making people around them safe, dignified and right with creation.




Regardless of whether the state is involved or not, everything priests do is voluntary,

baptism?
circumcision? (that's a rabbi but don't think that I am not including their skullduggery)

and again- let's stop CEASING OUR THINKING whenever we come across the concept of Voluntary. You have not answered me about the origins of volunteering. Whence comes the will? You might notice that often your will occurs as a thought, in language. With some thought you may notice that you were not born knowing this language, and therefore these thoughts that you call your will are implanted and downloaded, and therefore, not at all your own.

[Mr. Perfidy]

Except they're not the same. Priests are not like slave profiteers because they don't enslave anyone. Case cloooosed.

I made an argument, that by becoming a priest, one opens the opportunity to effectively be a CEO of a tax-free enterprise, thereby granting him power to dole out jobs as favors, to traffic and maneuver capital, to control commodities, own lands, etc. You said, "so do wal-mart executives."

which is my point. Wal-Mart executives are slave profiteers. Why would the priests be behaving like them if they were all swell fellas? Why would the incentives offered priests look like the incentives offered wal-mart executives if the motivation was not economic and political?




. Priests don't have any more power over public policy than you do.

now you're just making an ass of yourself.


Only the state has power.

I'm smoking a bowl right now. If only the State has power, and the contents of this bowl are illegal to possess, how did it get here?


The state is the one that enacts the laws. You can't blame the church because the state chooses to enact laws that happen to reflect what some priests might believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VoMmIPpNhAc


At the expense of the people?

my assertion was that the present environment of state-regulations assists the priest class, in the same manner that Education regulation assists the Teachers Union- it crowds competitors out of the market. If I want to host bingo, or even just read the Bible to people in the park, men with guns are going to show up and demand to see proof that the State recognizes my spiritual authority! As one who is not connected to the entrenched-class interests of the Priests, I suffer as a result of the regulations that profit them.


Also, police give no service.

how many times do you think americans dialed 9-11 in 2012?


If this exists in Christian minds, then it exists in atheist minds, too, and they do exploit it. Either way, though, it's still just persuasion, and I have the choice whether I want to reject it or accept it because I am autonomous. If you want to say that this is force, then prove it.

I thought I did... I was assuming that as a human, when you saw the words and therefore visualized the concepts I wrote (denial of food, restriction of movement, forced social demotion), that you would just realize the inherently coercive elements of these. You are evidently a sociopath though.

If your kid came home and said someone coached other kids to form a circle around him and mock him about something, then had him sit in the corner and stare at a wall and miss lunch while everyone else laughed and ate...

how would you feel about this?

"Oh don't worry son- he was just trying to convince you. It is a tactic of persuasion- you know, like, when people have a debate!"



It's still your choice how to respond. If you respond in a way that supports your interest in survival, more power to you. That doesn't mean it's coercion. There are many times in a man's life when he chooses between something that is good for him and something that he believes is right. Men have made both decisions. It doesn't matter why. It just matters that they made the decision. How someone influences you is entirely up to you. You can either let them influence you or you can disassociate yourself from them. No emotional influence is coercion just because of the damned fight or flight response. If this kind of coercion happens in Christian minds, then it happens in atheist minds, too, so why are you ragging on christians and priests for it? There are atheists who will exercise the same influence and persuasion.

well atheists who wish to use mental coercion on people can't exactly go the religious route now can they?
they become professors.


Yeah, if some witch is trying to influence you in ways you don't want, why don't you just leave? If she is influencing you in ways you want, then who am I to tell you you can't associate with her? Nobody is forcing people to listen to these priests. They do so because they already had the urge to seek spirituality. Just because they do so in ways that are not legitimate, that doesn't mean it was coercive.

well, part of deception is omission, and deception is coercion, therefore when a teacher or preacher omits facts in order to ensure loyalty, he is using coercion.


They voluntarily gave themselves over to that influence much like a man will sometimes give himself over to the influence of a woman. It's not coercive,

no, it's witchcraft

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oFmNgiEgPoQ
My argument is not with the deceived; their upbrining and eugenic debasement made them feeble-minded, ok. But those who are above them spiritually are employing coercion if they translate a need for spirituality into a living for themselves.


If it really is coercion, then why shouldn't it be outlawed like other forms of coercion? Why the double standard?

?

what coercion is illegal? Using the word "outlawed" implies coercion




The effects on the brain are observable, but the effects on freedom of choice are not observable.

did you sleep through the 20th century? choices are made in the brain...


You still have the ability to choose no matter how strong the influence is. It's very possible to quit smoking even though the cigarette has a strong influence on the brain. You can still choose.

good analogy- the cigarette employs many subtle forms of coercion against the would-be-quitter. It makes him uncomfortable, irritable, weak, sleepy, etc




It was destruction of property, so yes, it was coercive in the real world. You shouldn't be allowed to destroy someone's property if they don't want you to. They also stole, which is coercive as well.

ok but none of that is scary. People break your shit all the time. People get robbed all the time. Leaving a message that says, "I remove the barriers you erect between yourself and my aggression" is the scary part, and it is not violent at all. And yet it is terroristically threatening coercion.


And guess what, none of this happens in the church. Everything that goes on in the church is voluntary. As soon as you can show me a priest who starts stealing things from their people and threatening them if they say anything, then I will agree with you that that specific preacher should be arrested. Even if one preacher did that, though, would that prove that all preachers are part of the same collective that does that?

thank you so much- if I were writing up this argument as a paper, this would be my Conclusion, because you perfectly embodied the retreating collectivist defense-mechanism in these statements here.




Deception is coercive?

"Eat this."
---"Why?"
"It's delicious and good for you."
---*gulp*

poison!!!

that isn't coercion?

or how about,
"I hit you because I love you."



If deception is coercive, then why shouldn't people be arrested for deception like they are arrested for stealing or beating someone?

are you 11? Why do you keep arguing as if the laws are meant to protect people from coercion? Did you grow up in Shangri-La or something?


I don't get how you can make these conclusions about my home life.

because you are obviously defending a whole lot of behaviors that are in fact forms of violence


If you are trying to make me feel bad about myself, isn't that coercive? Aren't you trying to coerce me right now?

not really, because "you" are a screen name, not a person right now. If this exact conversation happened in a room though with other people, yes- your ears would turn red with shame, your stomach would tighten, your palms might get sweaty and your body would generally recognize my coercion and alter its physiology for a confrontation with it.

"Verily, I often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws!"

[kathy88]

Priests don't do that. They take vows of celibacy and often vows of poverty as well.

Not often, always. Poverty, chastity and obedience :) If we are talking Catholic priests, that is. This thread is stupid.

[Mr. Perfidy]

no way- page 6 = the shit.

yo it has been like 24 years since I saw that Lambert the Lion cartoon- so glad that it came to me.

[erowe1]

Not often, always. Poverty, chastity and obedience :) If we are talking Catholic priests, that is. This thread is stupid.

Chastity is always. But poverty depends on the order they belong to I think.

[PaulConventionWV]

ok can we please stop arguing about whether or not priests and cops are similar- that was not my assertion, and yet people keep arguing as though it was. My point was that they are alike only in that they are both a collective; I had a theory, that the same people who argue AGAINST collectively condemning the Police would collectively DEFEND the priests. Then I said stuff to invite such a collective defense.

of course I do stand by what I said of the priests, because again, like cops- what sort of person, knowing that their profession is heavily regulated by the State and stomped upon, decides to enter it anyway? It is not like you need to be a priest to preach the gospel or spread the message of jesus or whomever else. You become a priest in an institution for the money and the status.

Everything is regulated. Does that mean we stay in our closets? Heck no! Just because something is regulated, that doesn't mean we should avoid it like the plague. It means the government should stop regulating it.

If you want us to stop comparing priests to police, stop acting like the professions are similar. The church may be regulated, just like everything else in society, but that is way different from being an arm of the state entrusted with almost absolute immunity to laws and a free pass to beat, maim, and kill people. If something is heavily regulated, that doesn't make it bad, that makes the regulations bad. But what you're missing is that the police are not in a bad profession because it's regulated. In fact, it's a bad profession because of its lack of regulation. The police are entrusted with the absolute power of the state, something that NOBODY else has, not priests, not CEOs of companies, not minimum wage laborers. They aren't just regulated, they are the regulators they ARE the government. They ARE the state. The church is not, so stop trying to compare them if you want us to stop.

[PaulConventionWV]

who are a multitude, who vote for politicians that promise policies that reflect their own morality. For example- the christian right is stopping me from openly getting high outside in public. The priests lobby against my freedom and their followers vote to support them.

For the last freaking time, this is not just a Christian thing, ok? Even atheists do this. I don't agree with them for trying to enforce morality through government, okay? I don't agree with that stuff. But that doesn't mean anybody is being coerced just because they happen to hold a similar opinion. I'm not trying to defend them. Herd mentality is bad, but they themselves have just as much power as you do. Only the government has the power to oppress you. They don't have the power, they just voice their opinion just like any atheist would do.


this point isn't what I meant to introduce, but, it is appropriate to mention- aren't there many church-run programs like rehab/halfway houses that are notorious abuse-factories?

but even absent them- again, you are just evading the issue- the priests have followers. They advise their followers regarding social policy. Social policy becomes Law. Law is force used against my freedom. So, if the priests are advising coercive social policy, they are my enemy, and are inciting violence against me.

The sheeple who listen to the priest don't have any power over you. I don't like sheep just as much as you, but they have just as much power as you do. You're only complaining because there are more of them than there are of you. They don't make the laws, they just voice their opinion. The government makes the laws. How am I evading the issue? The sheeple don't force you to do anything. The politicians write the laws so that the police can force you to follow them. The sheeple play no part in that equation except the exact same part you play in it. You could criticize atheists for the same thing. After all, aren't our children forced to be taught evolution in the public government schools?

They are my enemy if they advise social policy that incites coercion against any of us, but they are not coercive themselves, and they are not all the same.


those beliefs come from an agent of coercion and deception?

Priests are not agents of coercion. You have failed to demonstrate how they are coercive in any way. Deceptive? Maybe, but they're not all like that. You can't label priests as being deceptive. Some of them are honest and work hard for their cause. Many of them do.


haha I am not an enemy of the institution of religion; I would like to see MORE RELIGION EVERYWHERE. But the churches as they exist now are state-sponsored capital-havens where social policy is leaked and field-tested and advanced with bullshit. I'm sorry, with "persuasion."

The church is not part of the state. It was in medieval times when the Catholic church was actually connected to the state. Now the state just regulates it. Nobody pays taxes to the church. There is no church tax and there is no authorized state religion, except maybe atheism or humanism since it is so widely promoted in our media, our schools, and everything else.


no. One more time I guess: people in the Collectivism and Cops thread argued against the collectivist treatment of the police. I wanted to see what collectivist memes would speak about the priesthood.

And I'm telling you that you can't even compare the two so collectivizing cops doesn't mean we have to collectivize priests. We collectivize police because of their state authority and the laws they all have to enforce no matter what they believe. Priests do not have to do any such thing, nor do they have any power, nor are they coercive.


well I like drugs, so, yes I do, because the drug market that happens behind the watchful eye of the State and its regulations and enforcement is free. Filled with fuckin assholes and gangsters, but free.

You think that is freedom? It's not free, they have to watch their backs all the time. That's the opposite of free. And no, you don't know exactly what would happen in a free market. The point is, priests may or may not still be there, but there is definitely a demand for people who worship and study the Word of God.


perfect! Collectivist alarm! Why would you mention atheists except to invoke some kind of enemy image around which to rally the faithful of your own collective? Weak

You're doing the exact same thing to Christians right now, are you that blind? You are collectivizing priests and christians and calling them sheep, and I am just pointing out that SOME (some is not a collectivist word) atheists do the same thing that you accuse christians and priests of doing. Just like not all christians are sheep. Many are quite intelligent and independent. You are the one with the collectivist arm, and the second I tell you that atheists do the same thing as what you collectively paint all christians as, you accuse ME of using the collectivist arm. THAT, my friend, is weak.


only as a thought-excercise, because of your continual prodding invitations to do so. And my comparison is fuckin gooooooolden so don't even try to step to me.

Your comparison is as shitty as they come. Priests are not even close to being in any way similar to police, in any way at all. I don't see how you can even come up with the comparison. You call them both collectives, but that's just because you think they are a collective. What you think and reality, as I think we've all learned by now, are two very different things.


again, you just totally missed the point. I am going to just repost my Comparitive Diagnosis of the 2 classes:
both provide a service that is heavily regulated by the State to the advantage of their own unions/organizations/specialists at the expense of the people, among whom there are a reliable number of people daily GIVING AWAY THAT SAME SERVICE only because they are happy to contribute to making people around them safe, dignified and right with creation.

Do you pay a tax to the church? Then how are they doing any of this at the expense of the people? Also, how does regulation automatically make it bad to be a priest? If the government regulates my business, does that mean I should quit my business and say it's evil because it is regulated? No, I press forth despite the regulations. The regulations are a detriment, they are not any sort of involvement with the government, they are simply affected by the government.


baptism?
circumcision? (that's a rabbi but don't think that I am not including their skullduggery)

Whether or not you agree with circumcision is a completely different debate. The point is that priests do not have any police powers, they do not have any authority to do things that you don't want them to do. They have the same amount of rights and authority that you have. Police have more. So no, priests don't make themselves a collective by exercising arbitrary authority like police do.


and again- let's stop CEASING OUR THINKING whenever we come across the concept of Voluntary. You have not answered me about the origins of volunteering. Whence comes the will? You might notice that often your will occurs as a thought, in language. With some thought you may notice that you were not born knowing this language, and therefore these thoughts that you call your will are implanted and downloaded, and therefore, not at all your own.

What do you know about the human brain that I don't know? If someone expresses consent in any way shape or form, the only way we can safely do anything is to trust that their consent is truly consent. If we start acting like consent is not really consent, then how do we even function in society? What kind of magical mind trickery makes us express consent when, in fact, we are being coerced. It simply doesn't make any sense. The only way we can guage consent is to accept that someone who expresses in common language that they consent is actually consenting and not being coerced. If you think that there is some sort of coercion even when someone is consenting, then shouldn't there be laws against this coercion just like there are against other types of coercion? Seriously, where do you draw the line? Being taught how to live and express ourselves doesn't mean we are all automatons. We invent, we create, we are original. Therefore, it follows to reason that we are in control of our own minds.

[Anti Federalist]

Priests used to be enforcers for the state (or the established order).

They committed some vile acts in the name of God and the state.

No so much anymore.

The state did not appreciate the competition.

[DeMintConservative]

Priests used to be enforcers for the state (or the established order).

They committed some vile acts in the name of God and the state.

No so much anymore.

The state did not appreciate the competition.

Yeps.

In fact, the first breach on the absolute authority of the monarch happened with the struggle between the Catholic church and the Western Emperor after Constantine's move to Byzantium.

That's why liberty is, from a historical perspective, a Western Europe phenomenon (not currently, of course). In the East, priests stayed agents of the state so those seeds never developed there. Paraphrasing Madison, competing factions (early Bishops vs the Emperor, later the Reform) are to liberty what air is to fire.

[PaulConventionWV]

I made an argument, that by becoming a priest, one opens the opportunity to effectively be a CEO of a tax-free enterprise, thereby granting him power to dole out jobs as favors, to traffic and maneuver capital, to control commodities, own lands, etc. You said, "so do wal-mart executives."

which is my point. Wal-Mart executives are slave profiteers. Why would the priests be behaving like them if they were all swell fellas? Why would the incentives offered priests look like the incentives offered wal-mart executives if the motivation was not economic and political?

I don't blame Wal Mart managers for operating in a system that's been spoiled. I blame the government for spoiling it. My brother in law is Wal Mart manager. They provide a good service to the people which would still be a good service even if they weren't helped by the government. Wal Mart still can't coerce me to buy their product just like priests can't coerce me to listen to them.


now you're just making an ass of yourself.

No, I believe you are. The priests don't write the laws, and they don't enforce the laws, so what is it they can do that you can't? If you say "vote" then you are collectivizing them. I'm saying, what can they do individually that you can't? If you collectivize them, then you make the individual illegitimate because that would mean a person's vote wouldn't count just because of how many people agree with them. If it's more than the number of people that agree with you, sorry bud, but you lost. Now, in a republic, your interests are protected by something called the rule of law, so the collective has even less power over you than you think. So you are demonizing people who have the same power as you. If you think they have more power, then tell me what power they have that you don't.


I'm smoking a bowl right now. If only the State has power, and the contents of this bowl are illegal to possess, how did it get here?

I said power. I meant authority. Only the state has authority to use the state's power.


my assertion was that the present environment of state-regulations assists the priest class, in the same manner that Education regulation assists the Teachers Union- it crowds competitors out of the market. If I want to host bingo, or even just read the Bible to people in the park, men with guns are going to show up and demand to see proof that the State recognizes my spiritual authority! As one who is not connected to the entrenched-class interests of the Priests, I suffer as a result of the regulations that profit them.

You can blame the state for that. It's not the church's fault that you can't host bingo or whatever trivial thing you want to do. The church neither has power over you, nor does it coerce you in any way.


how many times do you think americans dialed 9-11 in 2012?

And how many times do you think they regretted doing it?


I thought I did... I was assuming that as a human, when you saw the words and therefore visualized the concepts I wrote (denial of food, restriction of movement, forced social demotion), that you would just realize the inherently coercive elements of these. You are evidently a sociopath though.

I saw what you wrote, but how does the church do any of those things? If you fear social demotion, they maybe you need a new group of friends.


If your kid came home and said someone coached other kids to form a circle around him and mock him about something, then had him sit in the corner and stare at a wall and miss lunch while everyone else laughed and ate...

how would you feel about this?

I would feel like it was a mean thing to do. But it's not coercion. Just because something hurts someone's feelings, that doesn't make it violence or force. Guess what, you're going to run into that shit in the world. If you think that's coercion, then why not make laws against emotional violence? I think even you will recognize that there's a big difference. People's happiness doesn't have to be tied to other people. If it is, then that's their fault. If they have their freedom, they are free to do whatever they want about the emotional trauma, such as get a new group of friends. If that happened at my school in a free market, I guarantee you the school would fire that teacher. Also, I guarantee not 100% of the kids would go along with something that cruel.


"Oh don't worry son- he was just trying to convince you. It is a tactic of persuasion- you know, like, when people have a debate!"

Obviously if it's just needless derision, then it's not a good thing, but it's not necessarily coercion, and I have never seen any priests do that. In any case, not all priests don't do it, so you can't collectivize them like you are doing.


well atheists who wish to use mental coercion on people can't exactly go the religious route now can they?
they become professors.

Yeah, okay. The point is that atheists do it, so I don't see why you are hating on christians for it when everyone does it, not just christians. Why is it only a problem with priests to you? Why does it have to be the church? You say they can't go the religious route, but that's exactly the point. Even people who are not connected with the church practice what you call mental coercion, so why is the church so much worse than anyone else?


well, part of deception is omission, and deception is coercion, therefore when a teacher or preacher omits facts in order to ensure loyalty, he is using coercion.

No, he is not. If you think a teacher is being deceptive, then test what they say. If they are being deceptive, then don't listen to them or get a different teacher. If a preacher practices deception, then go to a different church. See, they are not all the same. Not all priests are deceptive, just like not all teachers are deceptive. You are collectivizing priests for absolutely no reason.


no, it's witchcraft

My argument is not with the deceived; their upbrining and eugenic debasement made them feeble-minded, ok. But those who are above them spiritually are employing coercion if they translate a need for spirituality into a living for themselves.

So essentially it's wrong for people to translate a need into profit? So nobody can profit off of something that somebody else needs? That would mean it was coercive to sell anything for a profit. If I profit off of fixing your car, am I coercive because I translated your need for a fixed car into money for me? If someone is sick and needs to get healthy, is the doctor coercive for telling them they need to pay to get healthy?


what coercion is illegal? Using the word "outlawed" implies coercion

Rape is illegal. Rape is also coercion. Coercive sex is illegal. Not that hard.


did you sleep through the 20th century? choices are made in the brain...

Just because you can observe effects on the brain and choices are made in the brain, that doesn't mean you can tell me how choice-making is affected. First of all, we don't know a lot about the brain. We don't even know how memories are stored, and that's just the beginning. So seeing the effects on the brain is a far cry from being able to tell how much someone's ability to make a choice is affected by someone else's words.


good analogy- the cigarette employs many subtle forms of coercion against the would-be-quitter. It makes him uncomfortable, irritable, weak, sleepy, etc

Coercion means to force someone to do something for them. The cigarette cannot coerce people since it has no goals that it can force others to fulfill for it. What do you want to do, ban cigarettes?


ok but none of that is scary. People break your shit all the time. People get robbed all the time. Leaving a message that says, "I remove the barriers you erect between yourself and my aggression" is the scary part, and it is not violent at all. And yet it is terroristically threatening coercion.

People who break your shit by accident pay for damages. People who break your shit and steal on purpose get arrested because they are being coercive. That is not mental coercion, that is actual real world force. So of course that's coercion. The scary part isn't the coercive part. The part where they actually damage things you have is the coercive part. If they threaten to use violence against you, then that not just mental coercion because you know there is actually a real world chance that they could actually hurt you. Besides, priests do not do this. Where are you going with this?


thank you so much- if I were writing up this argument as a paper, this would be my Conclusion, because you perfectly embodied the retreating collectivist defense-mechanism in these statements here.

What are you talking about? Priests do not do that, so they do not practice real coercion.


"Eat this."
---"Why?"
"It's delicious and good for you."
---*gulp*

poison!!!

that isn't coercion?

or how about,
"I hit you because I love you."

If you actually harm the person, then yes, that's coercion. You are completely lost if you think trying to persuade someone to think a certain way is the same as poisoning them. What's more, do you usually just eat things that random people hand you? I don't. I find out if what they are offering me really is good for me. Alas, however, there is this thing called "trust". You can choose to trust nobody, but people have decided in general that that is a very inefficient way to live in society. So you trust people you know. If someone betrays that trust and kills you, then they have committed real coercion, not mental coercion.


are you 11? Why do you keep arguing as if the laws are meant to protect people from coercion? Did you grow up in Shangri-La or something?

I am assuming you support laws against murder and rape. If that is the case, then you should also support laws against deception. If you don't support laws against rape and murder, then forget I said that.


because you are obviously defending a whole lot of behaviors that are in fact forms of violence

And this tells you what about my home life? I am not defending anything. I am saying that they are not coercion. You are being deceptive right now.


not really, because "you" are a screen name, not a person right now. If this exact conversation happened in a room though with other people, yes- your ears would turn red with shame, your stomach would tighten, your palms might get sweaty and your body would generally recognize my coercion and alter its physiology for a confrontation with it.

"Verily, I often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws!"

I'm not a person? Aren't you communicating with me? So obviously I'm not "just" a screen name. I'm actually a person using this screen name to communicate. Either way, it gets to my brain, which is where you say coercion happens, right? If I was in a room with you, I might also just ignore you. That's because I can choose how to respond. I don't have to become a sweaty-palmed nervous wreck. I will maintain my composure and just stare at you silently until you actually try to coerce me with your body. Then I will retaliate. You can't coerce me in my mind because coercion implies force. You can't force me to respond in a certain way. If you try, it won't work because I am still an autonomous being who can simply laugh at you and your attempts to deceive me.

[PaulConventionWV]

Priests used to be enforcers for the state (or the established order).

They committed some vile acts in the name of God and the state.

No so much anymore.

The state did not appreciate the competition.

Truth. The Catholic church was part of the state in the middle ages. Now it is not.

[Mr. Perfidy]

For the last freaking time, this is not just a Christian thing, ok?

("this" being: "the christian right is stopping me from openly getting high outside in public. The priests lobby against my freedom and their followers vote to support them.")

I do not understand how what you are saying matters...the leaders of christians that lobby against my freedom are priests. The leaders of other groups are other things. If you would like, we can start a thread and discuss how the corporate food-service leadership lobbies against my freedom, or the insurance companies, or the land-owners, or any other counter-revolutionary motherfuckers. What does not being uniquely guilty have to do with whether or not one is guilty?


Even atheists do this. I don't agree with them for trying to enforce morality through government, okay? I don't agree with that stuff. But that doesn't mean anybody is being coerced just because they happen to hold a similar opinion. I'm not trying to defend them. Herd mentality is bad, but they themselves have just as much power as you do. Only the government has the power to oppress you. They don't have the power, they just voice their opinion just like any atheist would do.

yes, their opinion that once enough of them agree and show up to vote, my own rights can be nullified.

Ok look your position in this argument, for the benefit of readers not following our running rambling rivalry, is:

"religious leaders have no more influence over social policy and law than I do."

I assert that this is a rubbish claim meant to distract from any criticism the priest class has earned through their collaborator conduct.

You know what a collaborator is? Maybe we should introduce this idea- the priests are ruling class collaborators. The ones who do not wish to be collaborators, enjoying vichy privilege, just preach the gospel on their own time and find some other way to pay bills and to eat. The ones who do wish to enjoy their collaborator status join collaborator institutions that get them closer to that public titty.


The sheeple who listen to the priest don't have any power over you. I don't like sheep just as much as you, but they have just as much power as you do. You're only complaining because there are more of them than there are of you. They don't make the laws, they just voice their opinion. The government makes the laws. How am I evading the issue? The sheeple don't force you to do anything. The politicians write the laws

nah they admit that they do not even read them. The Corporations write the laws, and these laws are the products of computer models with mined data interfaced with their budget projections and resource allocations and inventories. The data mined regarding human demand is created and maintained by cultural institutions, among them, the Church.


so that the police can force you to follow them.

a police force made up largely of brutish lower-median-intellect church-going conservatively raised people


You could criticize atheists for the same thing.

I do- you are trying to just turn the conversation to this imaginary "opposite" atheist (both are Imperial Orthodox worshipers of fear of consequence and timid limitation). The Atheist culture creators come out of Universities and hollywood, and my kalki-thought-form murder machine lines them up right alongside other idols for extermination.


After all, aren't our children forced to be taught evolution in the public government schools?

yes...lol what?

I don't really think so though because isn't it relatively easy to just opt out of school?


They are my enemy if they advise social policy that incites coercion against any of us, but they are not coercive themselves, and they are not all the same.

laaaambert!

you are just being so ridiculous, my god! How is this not embarassing you?! You are arguing now that pleading violent men to harm me is not coercion! It's called "incitement" and rational people recognize it as a form of aggression.


Priests are not agents of coercion. You have failed to demonstrate how they are coercive in any way. Deceptive? Maybe

deception is coercion.


The church is not part of the state. It was in medieval times when the Catholic church was actually connected to the state. Now the state just regulates it. Nobody pays taxes to the church. There is no church tax and there is no authorized state religion, except maybe atheism or humanism since it is so widely promoted in our media, our schools, and everything else.

you just keep saying this and I keep responding the same, and then you just reply with your initial and incorrect point that is refuted by my subsequent statement. Back on the merry-go-round then:

the State is to the Priests of the Church what the State is to the Teachers of the Union; it is a means of crowding out competiting service-providers in the name of creating a racket to which the State-sanctioned alone have access to market privileges.

Here for example:

I love god. I have a sabbath day- me and my wife practice a botanical sacrament that honors creation. I use my home for this and incur expenses that it might be a ritually appropriate wavelength immersion- so, our pets are taken care of with special attention to ethics, our refrigerator does not stockpile torture factory food, our household products were not tested on animals, etc.

Now, can I not pay taxes because of these facts? My home is a Church.

No, because if I went down and filed for that kind of exemption, I would be denied it. The churches lobby to make it so. The State complies because their interests are aligned.




You think that is freedom? It's not free, they have to watch their backs all the time. That's the opposite of free. And no, you don't know exactly what would happen in a free market.

just got back from an actual free market exchange; I provided my own security and relied on my connection's reputation and integrity to trust that he had taken all such precautions on his end. There was no tax and there was no paper trail and no regulatory agency ever sniffed my product and approved it for my consumption. haha dude you probably can't even roll a joint, don't be talking to me about the freedom of the black market.



You're doing the exact same thing to Christians right now, are you that blind? You are collectivizing priests and christians and calling them sheep,

no I only used sheep imagery to describe you and your apologist attitude toward state-collaborator coercion lobbies.


and I am just pointing out that SOME (some is not a collectivist word) atheists do the same thing that you accuse christians and priests of doing. Just like not all christians are sheep. Many are quite intelligent and independent.

I am a christian I think. I don't think jesus said anything to merit having priests.


You are the one with the collectivist arm, and the second I tell you that atheists do the same thing as what you collectively paint all christians as, you accuse ME of using the collectivist arm. THAT, my friend, is weak.

I am not denying any collectivist treatment the priesthood- like the police, I think that only opportunistic profiteering collaborator personalities would choose to make a life of a state-regulated institution that necessarily compromises its fundamentals in the name of peaceful coexistence with the state. Guilty to the last man.


Your comparison is as shitty as they come. Priests are not even close to being in any way similar to police, in any way at all. I don't see how you can even come up with the comparison. You call them both collectives, but that's just because you think they are a collective. What you think and reality, as I think we've all learned by now, are two very different things.

ok so maybe just answer yes or no questions? That seems more appropriate for your level of argument:

Do the priests and the police offer a service for a price?

Is this service regulated heavily by the State?

Do people who are neither police nor priests offer these same services, without the protection of state-sanctioned privileges?


If the government regulates my business, does that mean I should quit my business and say it's evil because it is regulated?

if the business is truth, and first you must accept State authority to compel you to lie, then yes, you either shut it down or join the coercion collaboration. The media is a good example of this. Another collective noose we should all be knotting.


No, I press forth despite the regulations. The regulations are a detriment, they are not any sort of involvement with the government, they are simply affected by the government.

ok see again you are arguing about Priests as if they are just any other business! We are not talking about a commodity exchange or for-profit-service, we are talking motherfuckin SERVICE TO GOD!!!!! By comparing the behavior of merchants relative to State regulation to that of Priests relative to State regulation, you are necessarily admitting that the Priests are just another infotainment feel-good profit-seeking scheme, and not concerned with service to god.




Whether or not you agree with circumcision is a completely different debate. The point is that priests do not have any police powers,

rabbis cut off the tip of defenseless kids' dicks dude. I'd rather take a taser shot. (tasered myself something awful and I would rather have foreskin and get electrocuted)


What do you know about the human brain that I don't know? If someone expresses consent in any way shape or form, the only way we can safely do anything is to trust that their consent is truly consent. If we start acting like consent is not really consent, then how do we even function in society? What kind of magical mind trickery makes us express consent when, in fact, we are being coerced. It simply doesn't make any sense. The only way we can guage consent is to accept that someone who expresses in common language that they consent is actually consenting and not being coerced.

unless they are consenting because of deception, which is to say that they are victims of Fraud.


We invent, we create, we are original. Therefore, it follows to reason that we are in control of our own minds.

haha yes very original indeed. You keep exposing me to these shocking new insights and new horizons.

you have it backwards anyway. Free minds are creative and inventive; that is why you see such little innovation today.

[Mr. Perfidy]

I don't blame Wal Mart managers for operating in a system that's been spoiled. I blame the government for spoiling it. My brother in law is Wal Mart manager. They provide a good service to the people which would still be a good service even if they weren't helped by the government. Wal Mart still can't coerce me to buy their product just like priests can't coerce me to listen to them.

hahaha I talk about slave profiteering, and you think to defend yourself and your volunteering to patronize wal-mart...

no buddy. I am talking about the actual children and workers that they actually enslave. A working-class schmuck who needs a job that works there- he is just a more privileged slave, and I have no enmity toward him. An actual executive whose job is to most efficiently manage the slave apparatus- fuck that guy. A free republic would seize his estate and hang him.




If you say "vote" then you are collectivizing them. I'm saying, what can they do individually that you can't?

for the most part nothing, and yet they sell the idea that they alone can officiate these mystical rites. The State gives them a piece of paper to authenticate this claim with fear of their force.

but also they can individually tell their churches to support laws against me. For like the 9th time


Now, in a republic, your interests are protected by something called the rule of law, so the collective has even less power over you than you think.

I think maybe you heard your father make this argument when you were crying about a legitimate abuse in like, 1972.

Since then though everyone failed everyone and now we no longer live in a republic and no longer have rule of law. Totally insane and ignorant to say otherwise.


I said power. I meant authority. Only the state has authority to use the state's power.

no way- there are a lot of church/state partnership sanctioned institutions that provide services as government does, that have provisions for things like use of force (mental hospitals, half-way houses, orphanages, etc)


You can blame the state for that. It's not the church's fault that you can't host bingo or whatever trivial thing you want to do. The church neither has power over you, nor does it coerce you in any way.

right. The 3 or 4 big congregations in any given county don't lobby to muscle out competing interests. Sure. Priests aren't people, and they seek their office for the greater good, right?


I saw what you wrote, but how does the church do any of those things? If you fear social demotion, they maybe you need a new group of friends.

jackass, no.

first of all, you may have noticed that I am using an examples that regard children, so, why would you assign some stoic wisened perspective to a fuckin 7 year old? more importantly, fear of social demotion is like a physiological current that immediately and over a long period affects individual health and bio-chemistry, punishing it when it senses a loss of prestige among its collective. Thus, leaders within a collective wield power over this mammal group instinct part of the brain and the influence that it has over individual thought/behavior.




I would feel like it was a mean thing to do. But it's not coercion. Just because something hurts someone's feelings, that doesn't make it violence or force.

yes it does

ok so your in church, and standing right on the sidewalk is some guy, and as you pass, he mimes some kind of vile sexual thing to your wife, calls her a cunt, and then yells to the congregation about how she fucked him.

slander, right? not coercion? someone's reputation isn't their property?


Guess what, you're going to run into that shit in the world. If you think that's coercion, then why not make laws against emotional violence?

ok I think I have to stop now because you are obviosuly a special person. That is like the 4th? time you have said, "well then why aren't there laws against it?!" to mean, "it isn't coercive." hahahaha



People's happiness doesn't have to be tied to other people. If it is, then that's their fault.

literally scientifically bio-chemically not true at all.

and again, you seem to be interpreting "human" as "adult male." I would like to see a 6 month old baby be happy in a way that is not connected to other people. Or a woman who desires a child maybe.


If they have their freedom, they are free to do whatever they want about the emotional trauma, such as get a new group of friends.

what if it's their classroom? Their family? so ignorant, Oh my god!


If that happened at my school in a free market, I guarantee you the school would fire that teacher. Also, I guarantee not 100% of the kids would go along with something that cruel.

so somewhere in your birthplace of shangri-la right? where is there free market education? myanmar or something maybe




No, he is not. If you think a teacher is being deceptive, then test what they say. If they are being deceptive, then don't listen to them or get a different teacher. If a preacher practices deception, then go to a different church. See, they are not all the same. Not all priests are deceptive, just like not all teachers are deceptive.

again- tell a 9 year old that his trusted elders are deceiving him, and that now that he has been told, he is free to just choose new elders to trust.

so ridiculous! do you live among people at all? I'm starting to get a very lonesome and kind of insane image of you.

haha I bet you got kids and a wife though.


So essentially it's wrong for people to translate a need into profit? So nobody can profit off of something that somebody else needs? That would mean it was coercive to sell anything for a profit. If I profit off of fixing your car, am I coercive because I translated your need for a fixed car into money for me? If someone is sick and needs to get healthy, is the doctor coercive for telling them they need to pay to get healthy?

that's really only an appropriate analogy if the mechanic takes payment to fix a car that works fine, or if the doctor accepts payment to do nothing to a healthy body.

again you are comparing what priests offer to what shopkeepers offer, as if priests are just a different kind of shopkeeper. See I agree with that. They are shopkeepers.

My favorite part of an argument is where the opponent just starts adopting all of these contrary and insane arguments that he can't even keep track of just to refute individual statements. hahaha child-pornographers have this power also! *swish*




Rape is illegal. Rape is also coercion. Coercive sex is illegal. Not that hard.

actually it is accepted punitive public policy. When I watch TV I play a game and see if the word "jail" or "prison" is ever uttered without being immediately followed by a joke?!?!?! about sodomy. Except in like, shows about jail, those words are literally not spoken except followed by that, so I would argue that rape is de facto legal punishment.



Just because you can observe effects on the brain and choices are made in the brain, that doesn't mean you can tell me how choice-making is affected.

but I have a brain and attention and I make choices, so yes I can. You can too if you look at your mind and choices in moments of choosing.


First of all, we don't know a lot about the brain. We don't even know how memories are stored, and that's just the beginning. So seeing the effects on the brain is a far cry from being able to tell how much someone's ability to make a choice is affected by someone else's words.

no it isn't. Go stand somewhere where someone is selling something, and just yell, "Same stuff cheaper! Same stuff as that guy, half price! Same stuff, half price!" You will see a line form.


Coercion means to force someone to do something for them. The cigarette cannot coerce people since it has no goals that it can force others to fulfill for it. What do you want to do, ban cigarettes?

haha wow another *swish*


People who break your shit by accident pay for damages. People who break your shit and steal on purpose get arrested because they are being coercive. That is not mental coercion, that is actual real world force. So of course that's coercion. The scary part isn't the coercive part. The part where they actually damage things you have is the coercive part. If they threaten to use violence against you, then that not just mental coercion because you know there is actually a real world chance that they could actually hurt you. Besides, priests do not do this. Where are you going with this?

that one can initiate violence without ever touching anyone...it is you who is arguing otherwise, remember?

hahaha back to that twisting and losing track



If you actually harm the person, then yes, that's coercion. You are completely lost if you think trying to persuade someone to think a certain way is the same as poisoning them. What's more, do you usually just eat things that random people hand you? I don't. I find out if what they are offering me really is good for me. Alas, however, there is this thing called "trust". You can choose to trust nobody, but people have decided in general that that is a very inefficient way to live in society. So you trust people you know. If someone betrays that trust and kills you, then they have committed real coercion, not mental coercion.

"All warfare is deception."
-sun tzu

Deception is coercion


I am assuming you support laws against murder and rape. If that is the case, then you should also support laws against deception. If you don't support laws against rape and murder, then forget I said that.

I do not support law, true, but I do identify and codify conduct to a degree, and recognize inherent revulsions to different behaviors, among them, deception.

Why do you think a lie detector test works? The body's physiology is altered by participation in coercion, or because of confrontation with aggression. In the case of measuring the truth of a response, the body knows it is lying, as in, is entering coercion mode, which is a measurable electro-chemical state.



I'm not a person? Aren't you communicating with me? So obviously I'm not "just" a screen name. I'm actually a person using this screen name to communicate.

on your end. On my end "you" are really just words triggering my own thought-responses.


Either way, it gets to my brain, which is where you say coercion happens, right? If I was in a room with you, I might also just ignore you. That's because I can choose how to respond.

nah that is incorrect- in fact different voice tones, words, gestures, and postures impose upon other people states of aggression-response. As in, are coercive.


I don't have to become a sweaty-palmed nervous wreck. I will maintain my composure and just stare at you silently until you actually try to coerce me with your body. Then I will retaliate. You can't coerce me in my mind because coercion implies force. You can't force me to respond in a certain way. If you try, it won't work because I am still an autonomous being who can simply laugh at you and your attempts to deceive me.

what if I didn't give a shit about your reaction, and found it funny regardless, and my intent in speaking to you thusly (hypothetically, in a real room in real space with real other people) was to lower your esteem among the people assembled? And I did this by say, deceiving them?