vaccination side effects

[lexity]

Look dude, you have already made up stories on my behalf and ignored me pointing out your blatant hypocrisy - and you expect a level conversation from me?

Do you call everyone 'dude'?

Besides the fact that you are a wannabe anarchist that is completely oblivious to the massive irony of posting your thoughts and views, via an advanced electronic deice, on a global communications structure.

Disingenuous of you, since you know there is one of two opposite definitions that generally spring to mind when people hear the word anarchy.

Anarchy means 'no rulers'. This implies no top-down rulers. Or no rule by decree.

I don't know many civilized people who didn't make it to being civilized without a fundamental suspicion of top-down government. Reinforcing this suspicion by placing strict limits on government power, is what led to capital formation, factories, improved sanitation, and a doubling of life expectancy.

Perhaps you, and your beloved corporate media, would prefer for there only to be top-down rule, and choose to substitute this meaning. That looks to be more the case.

 

[Splinter]

Do you call everyone 'dude'?


Disingenuous of you, since you know there is one of two opposite definitions that generally spring to mind when people hear the word anarchy.

Anarchy means 'no rulers'. This implies no top-down rulers. Or no rule by decree.

I don't know many civilized people who didn't make it to being civilized without a fundamental suspicion of top-down government. Reinforcing this suspicion by placing strict limits on government power, is what led to capital formation, factories, improved sanitation, and a doubling of life expectancy.

Perhaps you, and your beloved corporate media, would prefer for there only to be top-down rule, and choose to substitute this meaning. That looks to be more the case.

Blah, blah, blah, dude.

 

[lexity]

Do you tolerate censorship, then?

Yes, there are times when it is beneficial.

I wasn't referring to silencing dissent, in a protectionist market, Dave.

The average person doesn't consider stifling of his opinion, and that of competitors, 'beneficial'. After all a consumer's survival in any market consists of a market which is open to competition.

As soon as the State becomes the gatekeeper, you have capitulated to the temptation to substitute a violent, unaccountable QA actor, for a consumer who votes with his feet.

This is the recipe for achieving the opposite of what open competition is for i.e. increasing prices and decreasing quality.

I have no problem with truly private censorship. Because the consumer not satisfied with the level of transparency from such a provider would be free to go to the next provider who could be prepared to offer the desired level of transparency.

The Facebooks and Googles and Twitters etc. would have to be completely open to competition. No artificial barriers to competition in the form of ostensible - yet uncalled for by consumers - 'consumer-protective' legislation(which does nothing for the consumer and everything to raise the cost of politically-disconnected competition.)

 

[PsyWulf]

Do you tolerate censorship, then?

Freedom is not immutable nor unrestricted,self-imposed and society-imposed limits are necessary,including information

You and your cohort of brain damaged confidants have proven many times that self-policing would be futile

 

[lexity]

Freedom is not immutable nor unrestricted,self-imposed and society-imposed limits are necessary,including information

You and your cohort of brain damaged confidants have proven many times that self-policing would be futile

Couldn't make it through 2 sentences without the ad hom, huh?

 

[tetrasect]

Do you tolerate censorship, then?

You think anyone who is sick of listening to your kak is censoring you?

 

[Dave]

I wasn't referring to silencing dissent, in a protectionist market, Dave.

You asked a simple question and I gave a simple answer. But in your pigeon-like way you want to now add waffle.

Who said anything about silencing dissent in a protectionist market?

 

[lexity]

You think anyone who is sick of listening to your kak is censoring you?

If I had been banned from mybb, how would you know? As opposed to merely going off to other forums for a while.

 

[lexity]

You asked a simple question and I gave a simple answer. But in your pigeon-like way you want to now add waffle.

Who said anything about silencing dissent in a protectionist market?

Just because you didn't say 'protectionist market', does not mean we are not in one.

Clearly you think we aren't, otherwise you wouldn't be apologizing for the censorship.

 

[Dave]

Just because you didn't say 'protectionist market', does not mean we are not in one.

Clearly you think we aren't,

What has that to do with the quite simple question you asked and I answered?

otherwise you wouldn't be apologizing for the censorship.

Where did I apologise?

 

[tetrasect]

If I had been banned from mybb, how would you know? As opposed to merely going off to other forums for a while.

The question is not "would I know?", it's "would I care?".

 

[lexity]

What has that to do with the quite simple question you asked and I answered?

Because tolerating censorship, and tolerating censorship at your own expense are 2 different things.

That's why. Go back and have another read.

A protectionist market means an illegitimate consolidation of wealth and influence into a tiny number of hands.... using State ostensible power to 'protect the consumer' to instead protect politically well-connected providers (from would-be competitors).

It's like the mafia which controls the newspapers in a city, making sure only 'qualified' journalists publish stories. Where they determine what 'qualified' means, and it definitely excludes those journalists critical of city newspaper 'regulators'.

If the mafia approves of your business in this city, you might be 'tolerant of censorship', but not at your own expense. At the expense of your competition, more like.

 

[lexity]

Where did I apologise?

Here....

Do you tolerate censorship, then?

Yes, there are times when it is beneficial.

 

[tetrasect]

@Dave: "Censorship can be beneficial at times."

@lexity:"I accept your apology."

 

[Dave]

That's why. Go back and have another read.

Why? You've just posted the question and answer in your quote. It's under this statement as well.

Here....

Sorry, could you point out the apology?

Do you tolerate censorship, then?

Yes, there are times when it is beneficial.

 

[Dave]

A protectionist market means an illegitimate consolidation of wealth and influence into a tiny number of hands.... using State ostensible power to 'protect the consumer' to instead protect politically well-connected providers (from would-be competitors).

It's like the mafia which controls the newspapers in a city, making sure only 'qualified' journalists publish stories. Where they determine what 'qualified' means, and it definitely excludes those journalists critical of city newspaper 'regulators'.

If the mafia approves of your business in this city, you might be 'tolerant of censorship', but not at your own expense. At the expense of your competition, more like.

Absolutely nothing to do with the question or answer.

This word salad is a perfect example of pigeon chess.

 

[lexity]

Absolutely nothing to do with the question or answer.

.... that you can see.

This word salad is a perfect example of pigeon chess.

Is this how you portray everything you don't understand?

 

[lexity]

Sorry, could you point out the apology?

I just did, and you then quoted it back to me.

 

[lexity]

'could you point out the apology?'

 

[Dave]

'could you point out the apology?'

I didn't apologise nor was anything in my answer apologist, Mr Pigeon.