Are you smarter than a five year old?
Current time: 02-20-2018, 04:40 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: Andy
Last Post: Freerangecanuck
Replies: 35
Views: 541

Post Reply 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Are you smarter than a five year old?
02-18-2018, 04:47 AM
Post: #31
RE: Are you smarter than a five year old?
(02-17-2018 06:33 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  
Quote:Did you watch the video?

i'm pretty sure i did back when it first was made available, but with my memory, well, it's long lost at sea in the fog (where it could resurface some day, but not today, and that's out of my present control); i merely watched the recent clip per this thread.

The full video is embedded in this post as well as a link to it on Youtube.


What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte
Government public "education"/indoctrination is child abuse.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-18-2018, 12:17 PM
Post: #32
RE: Are you smarter than a five year old?
(02-14-2018 07:50 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  I'm confused. And I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I'm just confused and maybe you can help me out. A while back you went on a bizarre campaign to paint me as some kind of something or other when i choose to retain some of m my privacy in this public forum by not desiring my image to be posted in a video of Marc at some event or other. I can't square this with your above professed sense of being respectful of others time and personal space.

What specifically was the alleged bizarre campaign I went on? Did I paint you with the maxim, as a person who lives honestly, injures no one and gives every one his and her due; is that what you mean as a bizarre campaign? In my mind, that would be a bizarre campaign to paint Hitler, Stalin and Mao that way; certainly not an anarchist.

On a scale of 1 to 10, the above maxim is a ten. A 1 would be Hitler, Stalin and Mao -- evil, wicked, malevolent. Do you allege that I painted you that low, or perhaps a two or a three or a four, a seven or an eight?

Specificity counts for a lot here. As Marc has often said, take their, judge's and prosecutor's, general statements and ask them questions to get them to be more specific. They obfuscate being specific. They sit in silence to the question and dishonestly enter a not guilty plea, or force the individual to be submitted for a psyche evaluation.

So please, no obfuscations or evasions. Just be specific and describe what the alleged bizarre campaign I went on and painted you as.

In our exchange over the past few days, you requested that maybe I could help you. I wrote two posts, 20 and 21, trying to help you as best I could with the facts.

In my alleged bizarre campaign of three+ years ago, did I slander you or do defamation of character against you? It seems that that's what you've tried to do to me, slander me, defame my character. I read somewhere that when accused of slander/defamation of character, a defendant's best defense is the truth, the facts. Of course, that's only true when the defendant has the truth and facts to support their claim.

If I'm to be the defendant I have presented the truth and facts to support that I didn't go on a bizarre campaign to paint you in a negative light. In fact, I did so in trying to help you, as you requested.

Okay, now it's your turn to be in the hot seat; be the defendant and present the specific facts to support your claim/accusation that I went on a bizarre campaign to paint you in a negative way.

Speaking to you, a "juror," I ask you, have I been honest? Have I injured NonEntity or you? Have I given NonEntity his due? Have I given you facts and information you deserve, your due?

I ask you, has Nonentity been honest? Has NonEntity injured me or you? Has NonEntity given me my due? Has NonEntity given you your due?

It is what it is. It's like a drive-by slandered whose not heard from again because it backfired on them.

NonEntity, you're a day late and a dollar short to be taking Mark Twain's advice -- you should have taken heed before you made your post...

[Image: Mark-Twain-Quote-8-1024x626.jpg]


What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte
Government public "education"/indoctrination is child abuse.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-18-2018, 01:21 PM
Post: #33
RE: Are you smarter than a five year old?
(02-09-2018 04:41 PM)Andy Wrote:  If you were told children were born with creative genius ability, but lost it, given but one choice, would you rather know how and why children lose their creative genius ability or, how children can get back their creative genius ability?

Let's see... Skeptical

☐ to know how and why lost
☐ how to get back what was lost
☑ both

Seriously, why am i (why are We?) being framed (!?) with the either/or? May i reject what i'm given here in the booth, voting variety? Poke Cool

Surrender Perhaps that was a means at getting at whether i would agree there's need to prioritize, as my +value (too?)? (with a side of "hey, there's only so much time\bandwidth\mental energy\etc in a day>week>month>etc"?)

My PAss¹ of that being currently around .7, as The Case, i'll go ahead and address that: considering how difficult it is, and probably will be for far 2oo long, to change the mindsset labeled Public Education, coupled with how long it's already been The Case, i'd lean towards focus being upon the latter i.e. ✓ how to get it back.

Looking at what a curve ball (to risk being overly gentle in metaphor selection²) having it lost in the first place throws at mere innocent children tho, i can't see the value of placing that loss (even if just the time element) as secondary; rather, such should be criminal, and as a crime, given that +attention, even if as slaves in the massah's slave quarters, there's little that can be done other than give it all the attention possible, aye?

1. probability assessment (emphasis per the author, aka mei, upon the a**)

2. closer in the ballpark [sic] would be to have gone with whatever they call those pitches used to "brush" a batter away from the optimal hitting position at the plate, pitches resulting in their collapsing into the dust, being way closer to the reality of creativity "hits" in the game of Public Education, aye?

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Yesterday, 03:03 PM (This post was last modified: Yesterday 10:13 PM by Andy.)
Post: #34
RE: Are you smarter than a five year old?
(02-18-2018 01:21 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Let's see... Skeptical

I'll have to get back to you on that, More pressing matters at hand.


This is rich. And a bit long. You know where the scroll bar is. ==>

Some of what I've written about here is relevant to the, Have Homo sapiens been here for 44 million years? thread.

An opinion cannot become a known fact until you get fact(s) that support the opinion. A fact is a fact regardless of your knowing of its existence. It's the difference between the scientific method of reasoning and differentiating that from projecting an opinion of faith to be fact.

The scientist speculates something should exist, does exists and is awaiting facts to prove its existence. Absent facts, the scientist knows he cannot know whether it exists.

Conversely, the projectionist puts forth his opinion and wants you to join in his faith that it exists. The projectionist isn't waiting for facts. For the facts may prove his faith to be erroneous. And from that, he must hide. That's right, hide from the facts that prove his faith wrong.

(02-18-2018 05:17 PM)Ripsaw Wrote:  
(02-18-2018 05:50 AM)NonEntity Wrote:  If I've told you once I've told you a million times... DON'T EXAGGERATE! Tounge

Big GrinBig GrinBig Grin

And EYE wrote,

"....... seen & heard. done. period"

Big GrinBig GrinBig Grin

Okay, we'll let all that go for now. But I just wanted to mention .....that I saw a snake coming out for the first time this year. Better than 70 degrees, everyone watch out.

That is........unless anyone doubts what I saw, or that my warnings are unfounded, or that imagined dangers exist. Big Grin

Outstanding! I luv it!

That ol' snake in the grass poked his head up.

(02-18-2018 06:10 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  
(02-18-2018 05:17 PM)Ripsaw Wrote:  But I just wanted to mention .....that I saw a snake coming out for the first time this year.

That is like SO COOL! Finally snakes no longer have to keep their sexual orientation hidden in the closet. There may be hope for freedom and voluntary association yet!

No one gives a crap about your sexual preferences. What's most important to know is whether an individual lives by the maxim; live honestly, injure no one, give every one his and her due. <== That's hope for a voluntary society.

(02-18-2018 07:51 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  
(02-18-2018 05:17 PM)Ripsaw Wrote:  But I just wanted to mention .....that I saw a snake coming out for the first time this year.

Lemme guess... You were standing outside the Capital Building in DC...

1 down 534 to go.

Oh Habs, Habs, Habs... You may be looking/reading through rose grey colored glasses. Let me explain.

When you see a uniformed cop, right away red flags go up, right? You know this person isn't living by the maxim, live honestly, injure know one, give every one their due, right?

Next, when you look at the capitol building mafia head quarters, what do you immediately know about the individuals inside; a bunch of killers thieves and liars, right? They don't live by the maxim, live honestly.

What you/one really want to know is, are the individuals you come in contact with who aren't wearing government uniforms and badges or telling you they're from the government, you already know they're dangerous and to be avoided, right? What you/one want to know as soon as possible is whether the individual you're interacting with lives by the maxim; are they going to injure you, will he or she give you your due?

There's you, the individual. And, there's all that's not you. Living in this anti-civilization/statist world it's understandable that one would be on the look out for those who don't live honestly? They could be dangerous, right?

It's the ol' snake in the grass that you keep an eye out for, right? The dishonest individual hiding in plain sight, so to speak. That's why some individuals conceal carry. If they're assaulted they have a very good means of self-defense. Furthermore, if they see another individual being raped or robbed, they can jump in to their defense, to protect them from a snake in the grass, so to speak.

Conversely, when s/he sees a cop assaulting an innocent person it takes restraint to not shoot the cop. Because s/he knows that if s/he righteously shoots a cop there'll be a whole gang of cops who have already been judge and jury, with itchy trigger fingers they'll come as executioners.

Until the snake in the grass poked his head up, Ripsaw didn't know there was a snake right beside him. It's not about snakes wearing badges or snakes slithering about a den of vipers' mafia head quarters; hiding in plain sight from people wearing rose colored glasses... which clearly you don't.

A snake in the grass may want you to believe an individual identifying facts that may lead to a speculated conclusion is a bizarre campaign. In what world can scientific reasoning be portrayed, by one, to be bizarre... and the one be expected to be taken seriously, and honestly? smdh

And, it's not a pot calling the kettle black thing. No. It's one individual projecting onto another and asking the onlookers/readers to take his opinion on faith! For example, for it to be the pot calling the kettle black my actions of 3+ years ago would have to have been factually proven to be bizarre. An individual's mind-spun fabrication that it was bizarre is just that, a mind-spun fabrication. A mind-spun fabrication that you're to take on faith.

Albeit, you don't do the faith thing. I don't do faith. Ripsaw doesn't do faith, nor does Eye2 do the faith thing. Thus, NonEntity is left holding the bag of excrement he put forth.

At Libertopia 2014, Marc didn't identify, John Paul Ringo or George, or Mary Jane Sue or Richard. No. He identified NonEntity, in public. That's what "earned" Marc NonEntity's near full look/glare of death. Online, we're each known by whether one lives by the maxim, to live honestly.

This has come full circle to, is one living honestly with oneself? That is, is an individual lying to themselves; are they lying to themselves by omission; are they delusional, believing a mind-spun fabrication is real, believing the unreal is real?

There's not a shred of evidence of me saying NonEntity's mug face should be shown online. There's not a shred of evidence that I thought poorly or negatively or even positively of NonEntity desiring to maintain his privacy online, not showing his face online. I totally respect his desire to maintain his privacy online.

In public, among physical individuals, well, if one wants to maintain their privacy, don't go sticking their head up in public. No, it's not Mark's fault for doing what he thought was right -- announce to his audience, giving NonEntity credit where credit is due, for helping out with the camera.

I can only imagine the look on NonEntity's face as Marc identified him to the audience. A horrified look that would puzzle me as it apparently did Marc; to then have his expression morph to a glare of near death cast upon Marc.

I've never been to Libertopia... as far as you know. j/k I've really never been to Libertopia.

Had I been in the audience that day, I can only imagine had NonEntity verbalized his facial expression. Somehow, I don't think it would have been a friendly, make sure you edit out my face before you upload it to YouTube. No. More like, you friggin asshole, you just identified me by name in public, don't you dare upload the video to YouTube. I know my reaction would have been, as if to say, yo dude, reel it in a bit, Marc's a great guy.

A quick recap. The only information I have to go on is the post with the video clip from 3+ years ago, and 2, NonEntity's post claiming that I went on a bizarre campaign and apparently he questions my integrity. And he suggested I may be able to help him out. I wrote two posts trying to help and asked if they were of help to him. He was silent, no reply. I waited awhile and asked him if he could help me understand how he arrived at his conclusion that I went on a bizarre campaign. Again, he remained silent.

Here's the bottom line. I think each of us on this forum makes assessments of whether each individual we interact with, online and off; the assessment premised on the maxim, has this individual been honest with me?

Some of us take it a step further to ask questions such as, have you looked at it this way, is it possible it may be this? Aside from doing it for my own mental exercise, can I help an individual be more honest with himself/herself? Helping as Socrates has demonstrated; a life not inspected is a life not worth living.

For example, NonEntity, did you create your mind-spun fabrication in the spur of the moment? Or, have you been believing it's real for 3+ years?

Secondly, if one hasn't lived honestly with others online, and doesn't want individuals in real space to make the connection of the online persona with the physical man/woman in real space, wouldn't it be most wise to live honestly in both places? Or, not that I advise this, not stick one's head up in public.?

We make assessments of other individuals based on the live honestly premise/principle regarding their interactions with ourselves, and as observers of how an individual interacts with others. It occurs to me it requires some amount of intimacy for one individual to question the other in regards to are they being honest with themselves. Which doesn't necessarily include anyone other than the intimacy of the two individuals.

Lastly, a short story.

There's a group of six and seven year olds on the playground during recess. Johnny is telling the group that Billy, who is not with the group at that time, is a thief. He tells the others he knows Billy stole Mary's pink rabbit's foot and Paul's rainbow colored eraser. The group of kids are appalled. For they thought Billy was their friend, not a thief. They all feel betrayed by Billy.

Soon thereafter Billy joins the group. He can sense that something's not right and asks what's up, what's going on? They tell him, we thought you were our friend and it turns out you're thief. You stole Mary's rabbit foot and Paul's eraser.

Billy says, that's not true! Who told you I was a thief? They reply in unison, Johnny. Billy, quick on his feet, an attractive quality to his friends, he says, have Johnny turn his pockets inside out and see if Mary's rabbit foot and Paul's eraser aren't there.

Johnny turns his pockets inside out and the only thing that falls out is a pencil and his lunch money. Johnny says, see, there's nothing but a pencil and my lunch money, nothing else. Billy notices both of Johnny's hands are clenched fists and as he grasps Johnny's left wrist he says, open you hands Johnny. Sure enough, Johnny opens his hands to reveal Mary's pink rabbit's foot in one hand and Paul's rainbow eraser in the other.

The group is immensely apologetic to Billy for accusing him of being a thief. And as for Johnny, they want absolutely nothing to do with him ever again. For they see him as far worse than a thief. The worst of the worst for trying to turn them against their honest friend Billy.

Over the next eleven years about 20% of the group's families moved out of town. Come graduation, the remaining eighty percent graduated high-school together. Ten years later at their ten year class reunion, none of them were surprised to hear that Johnny had become a politician.

Thank you for your time and consideration reading this.


What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte
Government public "education"/indoctrination is child abuse.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Yesterday, 08:25 PM
Post: #35
RE: Are you smarter than a five year old?
(Yesterday 03:03 PM)Andy Wrote:  
You're welcome... I guess.

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Yesterday, 11:21 PM (This post was last modified: Yesterday 11:32 PM by Freerangecanuck.)
Post: #36
RE: Are you smarter than a five year old?
Andy, I read your post with the a recent attack from a uniformed person. That person was aggressive in action by way of parking right in front of me in a drive way. My blood began to boil at that moment. (That action would have been considered illegal by that same person if it had been anyone else.) I stepped outside to be greeted by a man who told me his name and stuck out his hand in an attempt to shake mine. I ignored the gesture and remained calm on the exterior. This was a person who was a threat to my life. It takes a lot of self control to respond in that manner. Mind you, I have had practice. I was told I was getting a warning on condition that a fee was paid. The anger of being robbed in that moment was palpable. The irony is that I, personally, was not on the hook for this theft. Yet the effect is this had created a feeling that in some way scared me due to the understanding of what I was capable of as a human. Though I did not react, I wonder when and what could tip me in to a ‘Falling Down’ situation. Being that there is a lot of history of valid anger.

Purveyor of the 60 MPH post.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 

Forum Jump:

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)