But I do thank you for helping me MAKE *my* point. Instead of sticking to the facts, you have shown one can - as Annalee did - just invent whatever sh*t they want in order to 'prove' their world view.

Of course, the rational person understands that facts, not fiction, are the only proof of one's views.

Like I said, stop with the propaganda.

Stop buying into (let alone spreading) enviro propaganda.

I think you've had one too many and aren't seeing straight now. Put the beer down, back away from the keyboard, and no one gets slurred. ;)

Breathing in the fresh country air and spending quality time with their families, more than 40,000 adventurous people participated in an age old tradition of 'gleaning' - the farmer's practice of letting neighbors help themselves to vegetables that remain in their field after harvest (thus getting work they would normally have to pay for get done for free).

This year's gleaning brought in a much greater number of food, family, and farming enthusiasts than was expected. Chris Miller, owner of the 600 acre farm told the Washington Post, " 'Overwhelmed' is putting it mildly. People obviously need an escape from the big city!" As a reporter, when you see stories like this, you feel free to completely editorialize. In this case, you know more low cost, outdoor, family-friendly venues aren't far away. And that is a good thing for this nation!"

"Millions of hungry people swarmed Ralphs grocery store nationwide today to get cheap food! One Ralphs owner told our breathless reporters "People obviously need food." With stories like these, we feel it is safe to say food riots are not far away!"

Give us a break and get real - real SCIENCE FICTION.

Annalee is presenting as fact things which simply aren't evident in the story. In the title of her story, she indicates it is hunger driving these 40,000 people. I'm sorry, but she simply made that sh*t up. She is just sensationalizing for political ends.

But hey - I guess that is the FICTION part of the science fiction here. At least she got HALF of the site's theme right.

Uhg.

"Freedom is a privilege" This is false. Freedom is not something granted TO man by others. You mistake freedom for *permission*. And only slaves act by permission of others.

"corporations are limiting my freedom of choice" You are only free to choose amongst those things others VOLUNTARILY offer you. You are not free to force others to produce the things you want, or prevent them from producing different things instead (or at rates that YOU want, etc).

"Are you for the legalisation of all drugs. Gay marriage? Prostitution?" Since I have already stated VOLUNTARY human interaction is to be defended, NOT violated by anyone (including government), you should already know the answer to your questions, shouldn't you?

The point is - no one has any business interfering in voluntary human associations. That some here want to do just that is the problem. THEY are the one's picking a fight - by declaring they ahve the right to act like thugs. I am simply defending myself against them and their thuggery.

Next time, get your facts right.

Put simply, ends don't justify the means.

You need to learn a bit about LOGIC. The logical fallacy ad hom occurs when one SUBSTITUTES name calling for an argument. I identified what makes a thugs - and why you fall into that category. THAT is an ARGUMENT - NOT a logical fallacy.

You should learn the difference.

"Your assertion that harm cannot be used as a determiner of human interaction is simply that: an assertion with no evidence."

Uh - NO, I presented a LONG argument for the assertion. In other words, I SUPPORTED it. I am sorry you missed it (though, given your other posts, I would have to say you didn't miss it, but purposefully IGNORED it). I identified the different forms of 'harm' that can occur. And if one is not permitted to 'harm' anyone, then NO production, no rights, no LIFE would exist - because my success can always 'harm' someone else.

Rights are about freedom to act WITHOUT permission. And an individual is free to act as he sees fit with his mind, body and property. He is NOT free to do the same with the mind, body, and property of others - because they do NOT belong to him.

It ain't about help or harm. And your OWN examples demonstrate that.

As you say, you have the right not to be hit by a drunk driver. And even if he doesn't harm you when he hits you, that right STILL exists. He has still violated it. Why? Because he has initiated force against you. Whether or not you suffer some harm (or good) from it doesn't change that fact. It has NO relevance whatsoever to WHETHER or not your right has been violated.

"Such an incident is not a voluntary contract between people" EXACTLY. It has NOTHING to do with harm. It has to do with VOLUNTARY or FORCED interaction. In this case, it is FORCED.

Thanks for making my case FOR me. :)

"corporations behave like drunk drivers, as they quite often do"

Every day, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of corporations engage in countless VOLUNTARY interactions with other individuals. These are NOT involuntary contracts or contact between individuals. Claiming they 'quite often' are is simply a lie. Repeating it won't make it true.

If a corporation - or a union - or any other free association of individuals - does engage in forced contact, then it is properly taken to task for doing so. (Though as you clearly indicate, you refuse to distinguish between voluntary and forced interaction - even though your latest example clearly shows you are CAPABLE of making that distinction).

Capitalism is NOT, as you smear it, a system in which groups of individuals are permitted to engage in the initiation of force. Capitalism properly forbids anyone - including the government - from doing that.

"I would just prefer that those laws be established democratically, transparently, and accountably; rather than by whoever has the most money and influence."

The false alternative is what makes you a thug. You offer thuggery of the mob as the solution to thuggery of the 'monied'. There is NO difference. BOTH are thuggery.

I am saying - DROP THE GUN - get RID of the THUGGERY entirely. Of course, BEING a thug, you refuse to do that.

That is a blatant contradiction. If you can't see that, then you are unable to carry on a logical discussion.

There is NO conflict between people's freedoms - unless of course, like YOU, one believes one has the "freedom" to dispose of other people like property. THAT is thuggery. And it is VERY simple. You simply refuse to acknowledge it because then you would have to admit YOU are a thug - and you want to have the PRETENSE that you are not.

As to the examples you provide, I can only laugh at the gall you have to use them and then claim Damienf519 is presenting "awful examples". Talk about "typical".

I would address each one of them and either agree that they represent a violation of rights or are the proper exercise of rights. However, since you do NOT want to do away with the violation of rights, but instead want to DICTATE to others, doing so would be useless.

Until you get rid of the thug mentality - get rid of the desire to treat men EXACTLY as you claim corporations do - then you are JUST AS EVIL as those you condemn.

Put simply, a thug complaining about other thugs doesn't have a leg to stand on. Renounce the initiation of force and what you say MIGHT have an ounce of intellectual honesty. Until then, all you are doing is competing to see who can be the more ruthlessly vicious.@Anekanta:

I have already identified why the use of the concept 'harm' as the determiner of proper human interaction is invalid. If you have an ACTUAL ARGUMENT to present against what I have said, then it should be presented. If you don't - if you have nothing but your whim driving you - but you still want to promulgate your emotionalist desire to dictate to others despite having no rational basis for doing so, then by all means keep up with purposeful resort to fallacies - the purposeful irrationality.

Of course, it is ironic that the intentionally irrational person would use the ad hom 'lunatic', since the insane ARE irrational. But then again, those who resort to ad homs usually arrive at them via projection, so - while ironic - it is not surprising.

Address actual arguments made. Complete evasion.

--

You are a thug. Whether you prefer to be identified as practicing the principles of a Hitler or Stalin or Attila makes no difference. The principles are the same (Attila was simply more primitive, more naked in his thuggery, which is why I make that comparison to what you preach).

"There is no freedom without responsibility." There is NO responsibility with freedom. As was pointed out to you previously, if you believe "murdering people" is an act of freedom, then that simply demonstrates how thoroughly indoctrinated you have become in primitive thuggery. There is no such thing as the freedom to murder. Freedom and murder are opposites.

Put simply, there is no 'responsibility' to restrain your freedom to murder. Another person's mind and body are not yours. As such, you are NOT free to do with them as you wish. Everything you do with them is by PERMISSION - otherwise it is a violation of them. Either way, it is not something you do by right - it is not something you are FREE to do.

"They are not accountable to anybody but their shareholders--which is why they act like thugs." Parroting my use of the term thug doesn't make it reality. Sorry.

It appears you want to engage in a major reversal of reality here. You want to identify voluntary human interactions as thuggery and physically forced human interactions as proper.

That is simply more evidence you are so totally immersed in the idea of dictating to your fellow man - treating them as YOUR PROPERTY - that you cannot (or more likely, refuse to) leave your fellow man free.

THAT is thuggery.

[www.imdb.com]