Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Lawful Rebellion / Non Compliance / Sovereignty

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 17-01-2013, 07:56 PM   #21
firstworldproblems
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 929
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Sorry I wasn't available to respond to your fishing and boost you up on your high horse. To think we very nearly missed such profound sounding streetside philosophy.
__________________
What? I need to carry a piece a paper? Slavery!
firstworldproblems is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2013, 08:23 PM   #22
dontpushme
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,359
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
it means all can be equal, or more precisely, all can treat each other equaly. a step above brute animals. bare in mind that the brute animals are probably better suited to a longer run on this rock than humans as for one thing they dont take more than they need. they dont need to "gain". humans seem to be destroying themselves for gain right now. but thats another subject. or is it?

edit...nature does not provide rights or equality. it provides opportunity. even opportunities for rights and equality. when beings think.....
what about dem pesky squirells? i heard they hoard nuts!

humans and gain, its only the low level minions that in my opinion really care about material items, those in the higher echeolons are more interested in control using material items like honey trap for wild bears. it's damn effective as well

as for destruction, in my honest opinion, we (Caucasians) are all fucked anyways, i know you watched the perfect consumer, i found out some info after i made that video, not quite sure how it fits in but


Quote:
However, after a sufficient number of mutations have been fixed in the population, the birth rate is slightly less than the death rate, and the population size begins to decrease. The smaller population size allows for a more rapid fixation of deleterious mutations, and a more rapid decline of population size, etc.
phase 3 man

note: i'm not a biologist
dontpushme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2013, 08:28 PM   #23
firstworldproblems
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 929
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Very interesting and telling that undeadcreature said nothing that hadn't been said before, but you chose to pounce on him. Gee, whyever would anyone think this had been asked in bad faith?

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoobs078 View Post
in theory everyone


Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
once belonging to the people


Quote:
Originally Posted by undeadcreature View Post
whoever finds them first and has the correct ammount of arsed to go and extract them.

TIME TO GET THE HORSE
__________________
What? I need to carry a piece a paper? Slavery!

Last edited by firstworldproblems; 17-01-2013 at 08:41 PM.
firstworldproblems is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2013, 08:35 PM   #24
firstworldproblems
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 929
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Last one, couldn't resist because I am a sucker for irony.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
try to read...please
Quote:
Originally Posted by undeadcreature View Post
correct ammount of arsed
Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
"the correct amount" eh? some might differ. you seem to think its a good thing...
That entire rant triggered by not being able to read properly. Or more accurately, reading what you wanted to read.
__________________
What? I need to carry a piece a paper? Slavery!

Last edited by firstworldproblems; 17-01-2013 at 08:41 PM.
firstworldproblems is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2013, 09:01 PM   #25
dontpushme
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,359
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontpushme View Post
phase 3 man
Quote:
Originally Posted by firstworldproblems View Post
Last one, couldn't resist because I am a sucker for irony.



That entire rant triggered by not being able to read properly. Or more accurately, reading what you wanted to read.

its not all bad
dontpushme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2013, 09:37 PM   #26
sugarelf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 130
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

only particular rescources can be owned

"the world's" rescources do not exist collectively, as that would be communism
sugarelf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2013, 09:45 PM   #27
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

actually firstworld, if you would only read, you would see that i agreed with undead's assessment of the situation. i take issue with the business of him seeming to think its a good thing. of course he hasn't showed up to say if he actually thinks its good or if his prose just made it sound that way.

do pay attention old beast.

edit: care to weigh in with your own thoughts...or do you have any?

Last edited by reverendjim; 17-01-2013 at 09:47 PM.
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2013, 09:50 PM   #28
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontpushme View Post
what about dem pesky squirells? i heard they hoard nuts!i think i know who one of the hoard is...

humans and gain, its only the low level minions that in my opinion really care about material items, those in the higher echeolons are more interested in control using material items like honey trap for wild bears. it's damn effective as well

as for destruction, in my honest opinion, we (Caucasians) are all fucked anyways, i know you watched the perfect consumer, i found out some info after i made that video, not quite sure how it fits in but

Mutational meltdown - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



phase 3 man

note: i'm not a biologist
nothing last forever...maybe there is a god. the peaceful sound of crickets...ahhhhh
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2013, 10:26 PM   #29
undeadcreature
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,679
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
actually firstworld, if you would only read, you would see that i agreed with undead's assessment of the situation. i take issue with the business of him seeming to think its a good thing. of course he hasn't showed up to say if he actually thinks its good or if his prose just made it sound that way.

do pay attention old beast.

edit: care to weigh in with your own thoughts...or do you have any?
I never said taking more than you need is good, it is greedy and immoral.

That does not change my opinion that if you are the first to lay claim and extract a resource, what you have extracted belongs to you.
__________________
The problem with a revolution is that you always end up back where you started and ultimately........ bugger all changes....
undeadcreature is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2013, 11:38 PM   #30
dontpushme
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,359
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarelf View Post
only particular rescources can be owned

"the world's" rescources do not exist collectively, as that would be communism
all hail agenda 21/un overlords?
dontpushme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-01-2013, 04:10 AM   #31
sugarelf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 130
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontpushme View Post
all hail agenda 21/un overlords?
no, all hail basic English and Free Market Capitalism
sugarelf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-01-2013, 04:15 AM   #32
coshh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: somewhere on this godforsaken paradise
Posts: 1,108
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
who do they belong to?
Whoever, individually or as a group, can muster whatever power or influence, violent or non-violent, is required to defend their exclusive use of them.
__________________
At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone - in this case the Pope - dare to approach them he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. - Pope Benedict XVI
coshh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-01-2013, 12:37 PM   #33
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by undeadcreature View Post
I never said taking more than you need is good, it is greedy and immoral.we agree there

That does not change my opinion that if you are the first to lay claim and extract a resource, what you have extracted belongs to you.
what this means is by force...which is greedy.
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-01-2013, 12:38 PM   #34
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coshh View Post
Whoever, individually or as a group, can muster whatever power or influence, violent or non-violent, is required to defend their exclusive use of them.
and are you ok with that as one who does not possess any of it?
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-01-2013, 12:50 PM   #35
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstworldproblems View Post
Very interesting and telling that undeadcreature said nothing that hadn't been said before, but you chose to ....blablabla
yes thats been addressed. as to not pouncing on the others, why would i? i does not matter really wether one subscibes to ownership or not. what matters is wether they blindly accept someone simply taking everything, which they dont. you however have actually said nothing here accept things designed to divide, which is simply what you do. you haven't weighed in on the original subject. you haven't told me why my question was in bad faith. you haven't told me why its not right to question something i dont subcribe to. yep, the usual from you. why dont you answer this. why do you come here? is it to save the world from fmotl because some poor friend was suckered? or are you here because for some unknown reason you just cant stand seeing people question the way things are from outside the standard procedure that society so lovingly nurtures? i dont think you possess a share of the world that you haven't paid a ransom for, so whats with your apparent position?

edit...time to get the horse?? is this some obscure reference by way of gary the horse to some belief in slave names that need to be erased that you suppose i have? sorry, i dont believe in the slave name, file a paper claim, go to court and lose game. nope, not a fmotl practioner...but then you should know that...but that would require reading. or maybe your problem is comprehension.

Last edited by reverendjim; 18-01-2013 at 01:18 PM.
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-01-2013, 12:51 PM   #36
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarelf View Post
no, all hail basic English and Free Market Capitalism
free market
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-01-2013, 12:59 PM   #37
coshh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: somewhere on this godforsaken paradise
Posts: 1,108
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
and are you ok with that as one who does not possess any of it?
Well I wouldn't say "any" but the quantity I have is very small and only defended on the basis of a very thin veneer of accepted practice that could theoretically change at any time.

In terms of ok with, I try and avoid being aggravated by things it's impossible to change.
__________________
At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone - in this case the Pope - dare to approach them he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. - Pope Benedict XVI
coshh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-01-2013, 01:01 PM   #38
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coshh View Post
Well I wouldn't say "any" but the quantity I have is very small and only defended on the basis of a very thin veneer of accepted practice that could theoretically change at any time.

In terms of ok with, I try and avoid being aggravated by things it's impossible to change.
yes, its not going to change tommorrow is it...
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-01-2013, 01:06 PM   #39
coshh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: somewhere on this godforsaken paradise
Posts: 1,108
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
yes, its not going to change tommorrow is it...
I would say by definition it cannot change.

I am assuming ownership means exclusive right to use something and can be held by an individual or a group. Any more limited means of granting that exclusive right (e.g. limiting it to less than "anyone who can, can") by definition would need to be defended from anyone outside the limited group. The act of defense gets back to anyone who can, can. Defense need not be violent, it could just as well be diplomatic, political, economic - many things, but it requires power of some kind.

Any expansion of the right to use, simply enlarges the group which has exclusive use (eventually it could be enlarged as far as all living things, but there's still a notional group) which then has to defend against individuals and groups trying to narrow access to a smaller subset - once again, back to the issue of anyone who can, can.

This is an inevitable fact.
__________________
At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone - in this case the Pope - dare to approach them he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. - Pope Benedict XVI
coshh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-01-2013, 01:34 PM   #40
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coshh View Post
I would say by definition it cannot change.

I am assuming ownership means exclusive right to use something and can be held by an individual or a group. Any more limited means of granting that exclusive right (e.g. limiting it to less than "anyone who can, can") by definition would need to be defended from anyone outside the limited group. The act of defense gets back to anyone who can, can. Defense need not be violent, it could just as well be diplomatic, political, economic - many things, but it requires power of some kind.

Any expansion of the right to use, simply enlarges the group which has exclusive use (eventually it could be enlarged as far as all living things, but there's still a notional group) which then has to defend against individuals and groups trying to narrow access to a smaller subset - once again, back to the issue of anyone who can, can.

This is an inevitable fact.
and thats human nature, at least for the vast majority. unsustainable ownership and profit vs sustainable use based on need. pretty simple but obviously out of reach by the species' own admission. thats funny. humaity inevitably screwed by itself.
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:37 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.