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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-04-2011, 11:30 AM   #41
catnap
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,324
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob menard View Post
I am curious as to why some people feel the need, a pathological drive if you will, to either discredit the freeman movement or people within it.

They take great pleasure in thinking someone else is wrong, or has 'fucked up', but rarely do they wish to examine WHY it is so very important to them that they be right and someone else is seen as wrong. They are often apparently desperate

Bearing in mind such actions are very useful for stopping proper adult discussion, and is often employed by trolls for that very purpose, I am still curious as to the mindset that must be necessary in order to even try and prove someone is 'wrong' on a forum such as this.

Why do some people seem so desperate to prove someone with whom they do not agree as 'wrong'? Do they invest so much in their paradigm that they are frightened of how a new perspective might affect it?

They obviously care, as they invest so much time and energy trying to 'prove' some other party is 'wrong' they can't claim they do not care, for clearly they do.

But WHY do they care?
And why do they care so very much?
Is it only immature EGO?
Is it a spiritual need?

Do they get something from it and if so what? And if not WHY so much energy?

I am hopeful that those who have tried to prove me or others 'wrong' or who have claimed I was, (and apparently found much joy in believing I was/am wrong) will shed some light on their motivations and share what they feel they get out of such endeavors.

They have even often used the word 'win' and 'lose'. But what is being won? What is being lost? Is it merely an attack to try and discredit those who share information in the hopes of discrediting the movement?

Lets discuss why some people come here with the only goal of proving someone else wrong and study the mindset of those afflicted with such a pathology.
Why do some people have the pathological trend ency to deceive vulnerable people for the sake of money?

By the way - something can only be discredited if if had credibility in the first place. The Freeman movement has no credibility so cannot be discredited.
__________________
Where everyone thinks the same, no one thinks at all. Ajahn Brahm

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. Martin Luther King, Jr.
catnap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2011, 06:21 AM   #42
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by catnap View Post
Why do some people have the pathological trend ency to deceive vulnerable people for the sake of money?

By the way - something can only be discredited if if had credibility in the first place. The Freeman movement has no credibility so cannot be discredited.
+1
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2011, 07:10 AM   #43
he said it was brasso
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 848
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by catnap View Post
Why do some people have the pathological trend ency to deceive vulnerable people for the sake of money?

...
You could be describing so many things in today's society here...dare I say it...even lawyers
he said it was brasso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2011, 06:14 PM   #44
diabl0
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 46
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

"Why you have to be wrong and I have to be right"

Understanding the mentality...

It is the need to feel accepted by your peers, which may or may not include the person you are debating, or the audience. Unless you are talking yourself out of trouble, then there are other incentives obviously. It is a lack of self confidence if you feel the need for acceptance from every person you debate. There are many... many stubborn idiots out there who you will never convince because they are IGNORING you. When a person cannot accept facts, the conversation is over. You just proved them wrong. It does not matter if they know it, as long as you know it. It is a sign of immaturity to continue to argue with a person who cannot respect you and agree with established facts. It always takes 2, Granted one is always worse and is the instigator. Don't be #2. Let them think they won. Ignorance is bliss to them. We know better.

I think this best defines it.

P.S. Debate should be a learning experience as well as a teaching experience. It is what keeping an open mind is all about. Those who have to be right... do not have open minds. I personally do not have to be right, but I DO have to have an acknowledgment that my facts are correct before I proceed in any debate. If we cannot agree on the facts then debating the implications of those facts is pointless and irrelevant.

Last edited by diabl0; 06-04-2011 at 06:19 PM. Reason: added p.s.
diabl0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2011, 09:39 PM   #45
fromthatshow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 1,194
Likes: 51 (30 Posts)
Default

Yes it is ego! Truth needs no defense. Even if there were not one voice to speak out for truth, it could not stop existing. We can only deny truth is there, but it couldn't go away. It is. It could never not be. The only thing that needs defense is untruth. The more aggressively and viciously and ideology must be defended, the more weak it is. If it were true, people wouldn't need so much convincing. If it is not true, the ONLY way you can spread that belief is by convincing them that your belief is true.
fromthatshow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2011, 06:01 PM   #46
girlgye
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a land that needs to wake up
Posts: 5,509
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by solzhenitsyn View Post
Sorry, it's not clear to me exactly what you're arguing here. Are you saying that people have a choice whether or not the courts have authority over them?



I agree with you to a certain extent. Indeed, so do the courts. They often consider the standards of the community when making their decisions (especially the very difficult decisions). And of course one of the court's primary roles is to enforce the legislation enacted by Parliament or the Legislatures which is, as far as the courts are concerned I think, the clear expression of the will of the community.

At the same time, the courts also have an important role in protecting the rights of minority groups or individuals against the so-called tyranny of the majority (a role I imagine you of all people would encourage them to fulfill). In that sense, its a bit of a delicate balance, no?



Of course these are valid concerns, and many other people, including many lawyers I think, share these concerns. However, every province in Canada has a legal aid program for people who really require the services of a lawyer (i.e., facing criminal charges where the Crown may seek custody or facing custody battle for their children etc.) but can't afford one. Most communities also have free legal advice clinics where lawyers donate their time to meet with people for at least an initial discussion re: their legal problems. Further, many lawyers do a substantial amount of pro bono work (and are especially willing to work pro bono where they feel a client has a particularly important or meritorious claim etc.).

Frankly, most of the legal questions that people on this forum have could be answered in a ten minute conversation with a lawyer. Even if one made an appointment with a very experienced lawyer who charged $300/hr, that would only be a $50 investment (and I imagine most lawyers wouldn't even charge a fee for that type of very short consultation). I would encourage everyone here to make that very small investment or visit a local free legal advice clinic if they would to have their questions about the "freemanism" and the legal system answered by a qualified professional.

All that being said, the sort of legal information which most people are seeking on this forum is more or less freely available in free databases of reported judicial decisions like Canlii. And in the spirit of my earlier post about the opinions of judges being far more important than the opinions of random internet people, I'll provide yet another clear and unequivocal rejection of several "freeman" arguments. This is an Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision reported as Mercedes-Benz Financial (DCFS Canada Corp.) v. Kovacevic, 2009 CanLII 9368 (ON S.C.) and available here: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc...canlii9368.pdf. In it, the Court holds as follows:
I'd like to ask you a question, if I may. Could you tell me whether this Canlii and other websites your refer to for your case law only available to legally trained and qualified lawyers?

Thank you for posting a succint paragraph on some case law. It makes a change from Rumple doing it. Though I think she may have read the posts which suggest from myself that her case law is meaningless. Why? It is created in a fictional representation of a court where the judge rules on conscience and not on any point of law at all right the way to the House of Lords.

The Privvy Council? Maybe.

How can unelected politicians decide on points of law? What is right and what is not right.

So of course a Judge of Chancery Division is going to say (however, flashy the legal terminology) nothing different to what is posted here:

I 'THINK' you are talking a lot of bollocks, wanker, etc.

Well you can think what you like JUDGEY WUDGEY. Are we of Court? Are you here in the Queen of England's name? Yes great. Then you will understand the strict mandate to which you must judge so let me see your proof that you are a judge and that we are indeed of Court.

I bet our little 'carefully' selected planted freeman which any grisly, greedy, grasping, satanic power, can conjure up to take to a Supreme Court and act like a dick, who then gets case law used against him to tell, well mind control the rest of us that we better respect that judge.

Ain't happening Sol. No more than a Doctor has any power these days. Most people go away and look up their symptoms particularly if they have cancer and end up knowing more about their ailment than the Doctor.

Nice try.

I'm pleased the lurkers are sticking with the posting and watching you at work over time. Though I do like you and know that if I asked for your help you would give it.

You're a nice guy.
girlgye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2011, 06:06 PM   #47
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by girlgye View Post
I'd like to ask you a question, if I may. Could you tell me whether this Canlii and other websites your refer to for your case law only available to legally trained and qualified lawyers?


Quote:
CanLII is a non-profit organization managed by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada. CanLII's goal is to make Canadian law accessible for free on the Internet.
http://www.canlii.org/en/index.php
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2011, 06:52 PM   #48
herald_holmes
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,380
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fromthatshow View Post
Yes it is ego! Truth needs no defense. Even if there were not one voice to speak out for truth, it could not stop existing. We can only deny truth is there, but it couldn't go away. It is. It could never not be. The only thing that needs defense is untruth. The more aggressively and viciously and ideology must be defended, the more weak it is. If it were true, people wouldn't need so much convincing. If it is not true, the ONLY way you can spread that belief is by convincing them that your belief is true.
Great post, I have found peoples ego's hide in their beliefs. Question their beliefs (ego) while pointing to a truth and they flip out.
herald_holmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2011, 11:57 PM   #49
solzhenitsyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,090
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by girlgye View Post
I'd like to ask you a question, if I may. Could you tell me whether this Canlii and other websites your refer to for your case law only available to legally trained and qualified lawyers?
micklemus already answered this for me. I would just add that there is a similar site which makes British and Irish law available on the internet for free as well (as I think you are in England, no?): http://www.bailii.org/



Quote:
Originally Posted by girlgye View Post
I'm pleased the lurkers are sticking with the posting and watching you at work over time. Though I do like you and know that if I asked for your help you would give it.

You're a nice guy.
Thanks! I do try to be polite at least!
solzhenitsyn 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 11:40 PM.


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