It's a satanic deception. This is simply new age mysticism, and people enmasse are being trained to embrace and accept it. The principles of it stem from occult practices which have been practiced for a milennia. It is quite simply magic, or the attempt to gain power over reality by human willpower and directed intention. Since you are blind you don't see the spiritual consequences of these things, but they are plainly obvious . People are being taught to rely on mysticism and esoteric knowledge rather than God, to believe that they themselves can be gods, just as the serpent promised in the garden. There is nothing new under the sun; this is a very old deception. Satan doesn't have any new tricks, and he doesn't need any, because the old ones keep paying off.


>> ^KnivesOut:

Lol you're just as deluded as the idiots who buy this crap thinking it will change their life for the better.
Pro-tip: its an inert piece of plastic, not a fucking magic talisman.>> ^shinyblurry:
This is a spiritual issue. Anyone wearing this bracelet is engaging in sorcery, because this is basically magic. This leaves them open to deception from the enemy. The wearers of these bracelet may well be perceiving a tangible benefit because of this spiritual deception. It is just one of the tacts the enemy uses in spiritual warfare, getting people to rely on themselves or magic devices, or things like "the secret".

Lol you're just as deluded as the idiots who buy this crap thinking it will change their life for the better.

Pro-tip: its an inert piece of plastic, not a fucking magic talisman.>> ^shinyblurry:

This is a spiritual issue. Anyone wearing this bracelet is engaging in sorcery, because this is basically magic. This leaves them open to deception from the enemy. The wearers of these bracelet may well be perceiving a tangible benefit because of this spiritual deception. It is just one of the tacts the enemy uses in spiritual warfare, getting people to rely on themselves or magic devices, or things like "the secret".

@NetRunner,

Pro Tip #1: Know your law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001960----000-.html

Pro Tip #2: [hint: starts at 2:30]

>> ^marbles:

No, you’re quoting “objectivism” for its absurdity like it has another meaning.

objective

>> ^marbles:

You have failed to make any argument that liberty is self-contradicting.

The ideology expressed by the video is self contradicting, calling it liberty does not change that.

Please re-read my original post (watch out for the quotes) for three arguments for self-contradiction.
3 ≠ 0

>> ^marbles:

Incorrect. Marxism does not share that premise.

Please enlighten us, on what basis does Marx argue that workers have the right to the results of their labor?

>> ^marbles:

Where does production come from? If it is a social construction then it would be self-evident.


Production does not come from anywhere, you might as well ask where blue comes from. Please rephrase your question so that it makes grammatical sense.

>> ^marbles:

Fact: Property is the inherent, human-right of control over one's own labor and its fruits.


What mechanism in the physical world can be used to test this supposed fact?

>> ^marbles:

No, Liberty insists slavery is categorically wrong, you insist it doesn’t exist and never could.


You ideology allows the following:
1)You can sell what you own.
2)The product of my property is also my property.
Therefor : If your mother sold herself to me before you were born I own you.

If 1 is false, then your mother didn't own herself, and couldn't sell herself to me.
If 2 is false, then you have no right to the fruits of your labor on the basis of self ownership.
Which do you give up so that you don't support slavery?

>> ^marbles:

False. Social contracts are not by default based on protecting liberty.


But you said I was wrong BECAUSE disregarding property claims doesn't work in my current life. If you meant to actually make a point on some logical grounds, you should have.

You, not I, used my current social contract as evidence of the rightness of your philosophy. Now that I point out the stupidity of that argument, you claim not to have made it.

Pro-tip: Consider the consequences of your arguments before you make them.

>> ^marbles:

False again. If I produce something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me.

If I touch something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me.

I changed one word. Please, provide some proof that either of these statements is false, without, simultaneously disproving the other.

Pro-tip: ensure watercraft used to catch sharks is bigger than sharks.

The (semi-functional) mentally ill homeless are less likely to show up for an activist/political feeding. They are roughly 40-50% of the homeless population; the other HALF of the homeless, of sound mind, is going around using public space as their own personal toilet per my example.

You do know there are laws and rules for public space? You cannot drive your car across the grass of a public park, nor can you live in a tent on a public beach.

Homelessness is terrible, but politically-speaking who is really trying to help and who is defending it as a legitimate lifestyle?

(Pro-tip: If you let your children run wild in a public park with herds of homeless about, you're a fcking idiot).

Unfortunately for the left, actions have consequences. When you make your city a mecca for bums--surprise!--you get more bums. Same with illegals.

Jugears McPrankster thought he'd get his rocks off with a little self-righteous acting. Yeah, okay. Then he goes back to the basement to count the views. Feh.

Citation: common sense, rare to endangered among leftists.

>> ^swedishfriend:

Quantummushroom: "Discounting the mentally ill"
That is a huge portion of the homeless! Discount them as well as the ones who have actually had a shitty life and you are only talking about a tiny percentage of the homeless. What is the point of talking about the homeless if you want to ignore most of the homeless in your discussion?
-Karl
PS. they should especially be allowed in a public park! Anyone should be allowed in any public space, right? Otherwise it wouldn't be public by definition, right?

Pro-tip: don't dress up as a hot-a$$ Supergirl then complain of "perverts".

>> ^quantumushroom:

Mark this under no one gives a sh1t


pro-tip: 6 to 10 points is nothing to corvus about.

LOL. Too often, QM, you give your insecurities away. And that's a shame.

Mark this under no one gives a sh1t*





* pro-tip: 6 to 10 points is nothing to corvus about.

Made one. Works.

Semi-pro tips:
* make sure you tape the entire length of the surfaces to keep them straight
* if you're making it to a larger scale, use stiffer paper

Pro Tip: Don't FK with the Jesus.

Pro-tip, which is often overlooked:

It is more visually effective to dress up for a protest... lends an air of seriousness, intelligence, and good intention. It can also be psychologically harder for assholes to harass and arrest women in lovely summer dresses accompanied by men wearing well-fitting suits and ties.

... props to the legend MLK Jr. for that bit of knowledge.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^Us per usual, JesusFreak is clueless. Had safety valve regulations been in place - as is the case in many other countries - the BP oil disaster would have been averted.
Enlighten yourself here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031
417936798.html
"U.S. regulators don't mandate use of the remote-control device on offshore rigs, and the Deepwater Horizon, hired by oil giant BP PLC, didn't have one. With the remote control, a crew can attempt to trigger an underwater valve that shuts down the well even if the oil rig itself is damaged or evacuated."
Pro tip: If you accuse others of stupidity, you should be careful to not pair the charge with obviously stupid commentary of your own.


You mean the regulatory body in charge of regulating it wasn't regulating it well enough? How is that any different? If only government could solve problems with hindsight, we would be set! Pro tip, if you make a point, actually make one.


PS. Are those laws even in place yet? Also, "PAGE UNAVAILABLE". I will have to take your word on the government being inept.

^Us per usual, JesusFreak is clueless. Had safety valve regulations been in place - as is the case in many other countries - the BP oil disaster would have been averted.

Enlighten yourself here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html

"U.S. regulators don't mandate use of the remote-control device on offshore rigs, and the Deepwater Horizon, hired by oil giant BP PLC, didn't have one. With the remote control, a crew can attempt to trigger an underwater valve that shuts down the well even if the oil rig itself is damaged or evacuated."

Pro tip: If you wish to accuse others of stupidity, you should be careful to not pair the charge with obviously stupid commentary of your own.

It wasn't until the third time I watched it that I figured out why the hell anyone had upvoted it.

I blame all my coaches when I was growing up screaming at me to keep my eyes on the ball while I was looking at the clouds and daydreaming.

In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
Pro Tip: Don't watch the ball!