Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 13, 2011 at 1:58am

No, Victoria, you're not a fan of debate. You are a fan of disruptive personal attacks that ignore the issues except to vaguely condemn them without bothering to refute a single point, which of course you cannot.

I don't have to allow you or anyone to silence me with personal attacks, either here, on BradBlog, or anywhere else. Mischaracterizing my right to respond to attacks on me or my ideas as a need for attention or a demand to have the last word is just another attempt to silence me. 

Voting is the sole and only way in which a system can claim the legitimacy of the consent of the governed.

When the governed grant their consent by voting, they are consenting to the whole package, not just to the parts of the system they happen to like. While you may think it is important to vote for a more humane person to be your local dogcatcher, or for a state initiative regarding civil rights, by voting in an election that grants the legitimacy of the consent of the governed to a system which is perpetrating genocide, wars of aggression, crimes against humanity, brutalization to suppress free speech, and even assassination of its own citizens without due process, you are trading that more human local dogcatcher or those state civil rights, for the lives of millions of innocent children you've never met and who have never harmed you.

All other actions towards reforms and change are futile if you continue to support and legitimize a government that is engaged in crimes against humanity. You may consider yourself a good person, and you may fear that if we didn't have this system, there might be worse things, but I don't know of anything worse than crimes against humanity, do you?

Tell me, Victoria, what is it that you consider to be worse than crimes against humanity, that you fear might happen if this system wasn't able to retain the consent of the governed?

In an egalitarian society, people are free to believe what they wish, but not to impose their beliefs on others. Is that what you fear, not being able to impose your beliefs on others? In the US, where children are considered to be the property of their parents (and until recently, wives were considered to be the property of their husbands), people have the right to impose their beliefs on those they own. In an egalitarian society, even children have rights and are more than just property. 

I know that most voters don't consider genocide to be an issue. It isn't on the ballot, you just vote to allow somebody else to decide whether or not the US should continue to commit genocide. I care enough about human life that I won't delegate that power to people I can't hold accountable. When it comes to the crimes against humanity that our government, under all administrations, has continued to commit since the genocide against the Native Americans, voters are totally apathetic. They simply don't care.

I do. And I call attention to this issue because it needs attention, not because I do. I call attention to it because voters don't pay any attention to it at all--they have more important issues to concern themselves with, like who will be their local dogcatcher or if their state will grant or take away their inalienable human rights which no state should have the power to grant or take away. So answer me, Victoria. You keep demanding that I answer you, and I think it is fair for me to ask you a question.

Our government is committing genocide, wars of aggression, and crimes against humanity. What is it that you fear might happen if our current system of government should fall, that you think is worse than genocide, wars of aggression, and crimes against humanity? Chaos? You don't think that our drone bombs are causing chaos by murdering innocent children in their beds every day? Or is it only here that you don't want chaos, and in return you're willing to consent to allow our government to continue to cause chaos by murdering millions of innocents elsewhere?

Is mentioning genocide a provocation? Shameless? Irrational? An attempt to have the last word when those with no moral fiber would prefer that I just shut up and go away?

What evil worse than genocide do you fear, Victoria, that keeps you voting your consent of the governed to a system that is committing genocide?

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 13, 2011 at 1:08am

OMG, I just cracked myself up, seriously. I realized the entire description I just wrote perfectly describes how I used to view arguments with my ex! Ok, now I KNOW I have to get out of here. Later, people! David, you can find me on Facebook. Victoria Collier. Or yes, Jeannie has it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 13, 2011 at 2:01am

Is it possible that wherever you go, and whoever you respond to, Victoria, you continue the arguments you used to have with your ex? 

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 13, 2011 at 2:10am

Yup, you got me, Mark. Your wit and cunning has finally showed me up for what I clearly am. I am a genocidal baby killer working for world domination by the financial elite AND . . . you have deduced that every conversation I have with everyone is exactly the same as the one I'm having with you now. Well played, Mark. Well played. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 13, 2011 at 2:40am

You're the game player, Victoria. I came here at Ben's invitation, to try host a serious discussion on the topic of boycotting elections, which I entitled, "When the Governed Don't Consent," because voting is the consent of the governed.

You came here because some friends of yours urged you to come here to attack me and try to discredit my ideas, not to discuss my ideas.

Ben may have given me this forum as an attempt to isolate me and silence me, as he has stated that he prefers that I do not mention not voting in any other forums on Occupy Cafe. So all I can do if I happen to notice somebody attacking me or my ideas in another topic, is post a link there to my response here, as I am not allowed to respond in the forums where I'm attacked, only in my designated free speech zone.

I am, however, grateful that this discussion is permitted at all, as it is extremely controversial and free speech in this country doesn't usually extend to controversial topics. 

Of course you didn't answer my question. All you do is sneer. You come here and demand that I answer your questions, and when I do, you ignore them and characterize my responses as "irrational" because you are unable to refute a single one of them. But when I ask you a question, you don't answer because nobody as superior as Victoria Collier should have to respond to a question asked by a mere Mark Smith. You're the one asking the questions, you have the authority, and I'm supposed to say yes or no or just shut up. Seems to me I've heard that scenario before in a bad cop movie. 

So mentioning genocide is just a game I'm playing? It isn't real? It doesn't exist? Our government isn't at this very moment committing genocide in at least five different countries? And just because you support that genocidal system doesn't make you complicit? 

You've said several times that if our genocidal system failed, you fear that worse things might happen. I asked you to tell me what you consider to be worse than genocide, and you just sneer and say it's only a game I'm playing.

You typify the average voter who is too apathetic to care if our government has always been committing genocide and is continuing to commit genocide right now, because this is the best of all possible systems and if it were to fall, something worse than genocide, which you can't name, might result. The only fear you named is "chaos," and you are too apathetic to care if chaos is what we're doing by committing genocide abroad, as long as you can believe that we don't have chaos here. We certainly don't have chaos in the Occupy Movement--the cops are making sure of that. And they have the legitimate right to use brutal violence to enforce law and order, and to prevent chaos, because people delegated that right to local, state, and federal government by voting. People actually vote to give the government the right to bash their heads in.

Ah, but it's just a game, right Victoria? There aren't any real issues, just a need for people to participate in the game, perhaps to wish it were a bit less rigged, perhaps to get a dealer who is a smoother liar, but no real need to change the game. Maybe that's what makes me insane in your eyes, Victoria, but I don't think that killing innocent children is a game. And I don't think that people should legitimize or grant their consent to a government that kills innocent children. Not even if they fear terrorists or fear chaos or fear religious extremists or fear the mentally ill--maybe the reason that the baby-killers fear such people is that many of those people were driven insane when our government killed their children or ordered them to kill innocent children?

No, I don't think you're a genocidal baby killer, Victoria, I think you're a typical apathetic voter who thinks genocide is just a game and will therefore formally consent, in each and every election, to grant the government the right to commit genocide in your name. It isn't as if it is anything serious or important like attacking people who won't.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 13, 2011 at 2:54am

Yup. I think genocide is a game and I want the government to commit it in my name. You must be reading my mail. 

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 13, 2011 at 3:04am

Seriously Mark, we can stop now. We've played this out to its end. So even though I know you're going to come back and try to get me back in, I'm not going to respond because this isn't healthy for anyone. So go ahead and make your last comments for the benefit of anyone who stumbles across this page, so you can make me out to be whatever you like. Ok? Ya basta. I throw in the white towel.

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 13, 2011 at 4:12am

Thank you for your continued flippancy, Victoria. Anyone who might have mistaken you for a serious person should know better by now.

Permalink Reply by David Lasagna on December 13, 2011 at 3:49am

Dear Victoria,

It seems I can't respond yet to your latest so I'm putting this here.

Please follow your advice to me. Let go. Get out. I'll take you back out for coffee and I don't even drink coffee. You are not playing by the same rules. You are not speaking the same language. There is no accountability or sense in this particular madhouse.  It's Humpty Dumpty Redux. It's an exercise in futility. It would make more sense to join okcupid and try to meet me through there(not a good idea), or poke yourself in the eye with a stick, or masturbate with sandpaper on quaaludes, or become a Wall Street executive, or open a Walmart, or become a lobbyist for the Keystone pipeline, or blow Tom Delay, or join a bridge club with Sharon Angle, Michele Bachmann, and Sarah Palin, or epoxy yourself to the inside of a lightbulb, than to continue here. He didn't win. There's nothing to win. Letting go is a powerful act. Not doing is a powerful doing. Do what you told me to do.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 13, 2011 at 4:11am

Thank you for spamming this topic once again, David. It may be disruptive, but at least everyone can see what you are and why you're here.

Permalink Reply by David Lasagna on December 13, 2011 at 4:16am

I'm counting on it.

Permalink Reply by David Lasagna on December 13, 2011 at 11:24am

I disagree with most that you say in this comment as it is completely at odds with my reality, but thanks for the explanation of your picture. I appreciate that.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• …
• 58
• Next ›
• Page