"Disturbing the Peace" versus "Violence"

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Discernment is needed when differentiating the types of "violence" that will happen between competing pimps and drug pushers, and the types of "disturbances of the peace" that will happen between a married couple.

As it was before the advent of positive government -- the idea that every citizen in society has a chance of acheiving a degree of contentment -- the primitive caste systems of master and slave classes functioned peacefully together. Violence only happened when a competing master class attempted to invade to steal slaves from the other. This competition created the even lower class of the untouchable or outcaste. These were ones who were rejected by both slave and master class alike.

From the point of view of a national dinner table, we should be against violence while we should be able to discern enough to tolerate disturbances of the peace. When the state penalizes a domestic disturbance between a couple, it taxes the marriage and not the individual. This is another process where we are eroding ourselves back to the TYRANT KING from being a government of THE PEOPLE.

Reality should be a domestic disturbance when the goal is to avoid reverting back to that natural relationship when a master class pimp ate seperately from his slave class whores.

 

[Truth Warrior]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Philosophical Basis of the Conflict Between Liberty and Statism[/FONT][/FONT]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller8.html​

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

With Plato, the truth engine dialectics were the point. Not the dialogues.

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Philosophical Basis of the Conflict Between Liberty and Statism[/FONT][/FONT]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller8.html​

At the time of Immanuel Kant's death, science didn't know that the heart worked as a pump. Consider that George Washington died from excessive bleedings? The philosophers mentioned in the above essay were limitied in their knowledge of science and yet they are somehow supposed to be sophisticated in matters concerning political science?
Molecules were unknown. As far as they knew, human reproduction happened as a result of the female and male solutions mixing together like paint. David Hume and Immanuel Kant helped Descartes establish further the observable and theoretical realms in science. A lot of science had been tainted metaphysically when the Catholic Church adopted Aristotle as God's natural law. Science couldn't attack the religion so it challenged it as metaphysics.

 

[Truth Warrior]

At the time of Immanuel Kant's death, science didn't know that the heart worked as a pump. Consider that George Washington died from excessive bleedings? The philosophers mentioned in the above essay were limitied in their knowledge of science and yet they are somehow supposed to be sophisticated in matters concerning political science?
Molecules were unknown. As far as they knew, human reproduction happened as a result of the female and male solutions mixing together like paint. David Hume and Immanuel Kant helped Descartes establish further the observable and theoretical realms in science. A lot of science had been tainted metaphysically when the Catholic Church adopted Aristotle as God's natural law. Science couldn't attack the religion so it challenged it as metaphysics.

That sure doesn't seem to slow you down any on your ongoing bogus and phony Plato / Hegel / Marx / etc. idolatrous barbaric statist worship however.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The freeth will set you true!

That sure doesn't seem to slow you down any on your ongoing bogus and phony Plato / Hegel / Marx / etc. idolatrous barbaric statist worship however.

I see. So, you are smarter than Plato. Plato is bogus and phony because, well, you know more than he. I guess it must offend you that a student without a formal education, this would be Rousseau, dug up the concept of "positive" government in Plato's dialogues. All the while Plato was taught on a street corner by Socrates.

 

[Truth Warrior]

I see. So, you are smarter than Plato. Plato is bogus and phony because, well, you know more than he. I guess it must offend you that a student without a formal education, this would be Rousseau, dug up the concept of "positive" government in Plato's dialogues. All the while Plato was taught on a street corner by Socrates.

No, I am smarter than you, and you are phony and bogus.

They were just incorrect AND barbarians. You have NO excuse.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Try reading fewer books.

No, I am smarter than you, and you are phony and bogus.

They were just incorrect AND barbarians. You have NO excuse.

You present a huge essay without comment. The fellow who wrote the damn essay, of course, is smarter than Plato. Typical. And, yes, you are smarter than Plato. Great. This should help humanity. Plato is an idiot and you are smarter than he. Wonderful. A barbarian was a person outside of Greece. Plato was a Greek. Plato not barbarian.

 

[Truth Warrior]

You present a huge essay without comment. The fellow who wrote the damn essay, of course, is smarter than Plato. Typical. And, yes, you are smarter than Plato. Great. This should help humanity. Plato is an idiot and you are smarter than he. Wonderful. A barbarian was a person outside of Greece. Plato was a Greek. Plato not barbarian.

Aw geeze, presented without comment. Maybe you just need to now fabricate and issue another bogus BS UEW RULE ( so called ) to cover that offense.

Repeated because you obviously didn't even comprehend it the first time, of course.

No, I am smarter than you, and you are phony and bogus.

They were just incorrect AND barbarians. You have NO excuse.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/barbarian

ALL statists are barbarians.<IMHO> Statism is a bogus, corrupt and barbaric concept AND philosophy all the way down to it's very core bogus irrational axioms, and ALWAYS has been. DUH!!!

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Hey . . . eee!

Aw geeze, presented without comment. Maybe you just need to now fabricate and issue another bogus BS UEW RULE ( so called ) to cover that offense.

Repeated because you obviously didn't even comprehend it the first time, of course.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/barbarian

ALL statists are barbarians.<IMHO> Statism is a bogus, corrupt and barbaric concept AND philosophy all the way down to it's very core bogus irrational axioms, and ALWAYS has been. DUH!!!

Ahem,

Ad hominem -- a meaning in the dictionary which people can read and understand clearly and yet take no heed. A mysterious word whose definition always seems to exist just out of reach for the vast majority of those who call themselves intelligent. A word that perplexes modern scientists as its definition exists clearly in the observable realm of the five senses and, yet, evidence of its meaning still remains lost in the possibilities of deep theory.

You can post an essay but you can't critique an essay. A comment preceding the essay will substantiate that you read the essay, discerned the essay and comprehended the essay. You have a tendency to focus on how smart you are rather than on the content of what you have posted. I have no doubt that you are intelligent. A person would have to be stupid not to think so.

The "14 rules of legal abstinence" deal with American Transcendentalism. Perhaps you are not from this nation and need an education on what Transcendentalism entails? Well, American Transcendentalism was the first American Movement led by Ralph Waldo Emerson to shine a light on the sanctity of the Founding Fathers, The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution. It was the first time in our nation's history that history was recalled and consecrated in such a way that it distinguished Americans from Europeans.

You are one of those who sound like a weird European. As far as I'm concerned, you can dress up as a Witch doctor to dance naked around a dead chicken.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Ahem,

Ad hominem -- a meaning in the dictionary which people can read and understand clearly and yet take no heed. A mysterious word whose definition always seems to exist just out of reach for the vast majority of those who call themselves intelligent. A word that perplexes modern scientists as its definition exists clearly in the observable realm of the five senses and, yet, evidence of its meaning still remains lost in the possibilities of deep theory.

You can post an essay but you can't critique an essay. A comment preceding the essay will substantiate that you read the essay, discerned the essay and comprehended the essay. You have a tendency to focus on how smart you are rather than on the content of what you have posted. I have no doubt that you are intelligent. A person would have to be stupid not to think so.

The "14 rules of legal abstinence" deal with American Transcendentalism. Perhaps you are not from this nation and need an education on what Transcendentalism entails? Well, American Transcendentalism was the first American Movement led by Ralph Waldo Emerson to shine a light on the sanctity of the Founding Fathers, The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution. It was the first time in our nation's history that history was recalled and consecrated in such a way that it distinguished Americans from Europeans.

You are one of those who sound like a weird European. As far as I'm concerned, you can dress up as a Witch doctor to dance naked around a dead chicken.

You already know damned good and well that I was born and raised here. You've tried to pull that particular brand of BOGUS and PHONY UEW BULLSHIT on others and me several times before, ALL TO NO AVAIL. Your ARMORY of available lame ideas appears NONE too deep. Just repeat the same old bogus incoherent BORING crap non-functional ploys over and over and over.

Take your phony STATIST Philosophy .0000000001 course "brainwash programming" and Transcendentalism BS and stick it where the Sun does not shine. Go back to your "government" school and demand a refund.

Peddle your particular flavor of barbaric Plato/Hegel/Marx/Rousseau/etc. worship EUROPEAN BS propaganda somewhere else that it just might be appreciated. North Korea perhaps. It has NO place on the RPF.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Political science is not a science. It is called that but it is not.

You already know damned good and well that I was born and raised here. You've tried to pull that particular brand of BOGUS and PHONY UEW BULLSHIT on others and me several times before, ALL TO NO AVAIL. Your ARMORY of available lame ideas appears NONE too deep. Just repeat the same old bogus incoherent BORING crap non-functional ploys over and over and over.

Take your phony STATIST Philosophy .0000000001 course "brainwash programming" and Transcendentalism BS and stick it where the Sun does not shine. Go back to your "government" school and demand a refund.

Peddle your particular flavor of barbaric Plato/Hegel/Marx/Rousseau/etc. worship EUROPEAN BS propaganda somewhere else that it just might be appreciated. North Korea perhaps. It has NO place on the RPF.

Modern Socrates claimed to be a serving teacher (mid-wife philosopher) to the poor while the corrupted Aristotle chose to revert to tyranny by serving, as contemporary teachers did at that time, as a trainer to prince Alexander and the other elite children of Macedonia [so that they might one day take the rightful places of their parents]. At the time of his trial, Socrates did not save his life by suggesting that he could train the children of the ruling elite. He suggested that the state could pay him a little to serve the poor.
Aristotle never demonstrated that he was an accomplished writer having never completed any of his works to a formal finish as did Plato. This has left historians pondering if whether he was the same Aristotle who wrote research papers on Greek porn {why did the naked actors wear their sandles while performing}. Whatever the case, he was rational.
Aristotle did advance the Greeks far beyond the Chinese and Indians by dealing with reality metaphysically. Through his works called metaphysics (which means [reality?]), the Greeks were able to clearly divide reality into the sciences, arts, religions and so on. The Chinese and Indians never did this.
Ok, so moving on to the subject of the later metaphysics, Immanuel Kant and lessors of that time, he is called the father of epistemology. Out of his metaphysical considerations came the idea of the cognitive sciences: psychology, sociology and something called the living biosphere [whatever that is]. As Aristotle's works helped divide reality into the arts and science et al, Kant helped divide science into the cognitive and natural sciences.
Okay. So, a question in philosophy is whether the cognitive sciences unify by reduction with the natural sciences. Are the cognitive sciences even a science? There is a good argument that the cognitive sciences take on more the characteristics of art [with their endless methodologies].
So, Kant did not know about the cognitive sociological and psychological sciences himself for such did not exist. Rather, he argued that science fails in its attempt to reduce itself to natural science alone. Something was amiss with the scientific method. And so on . . .

 

[Truth Warrior]

Modern Socrates claimed to be a serving teacher (mid-wife philosopher) to the poor while the corrupted Aristotle chose to revert to tyranny by serving, as the prior contemporary teachers once did, as a trainer to prince Alexander and the other elite children of Macedonia [so that they might one day take the rightful places of their parents]. Aristotle never demonstrated that he could write having never completed any of his works to a formal finish as did Plato. This has left historians pondering if Aristotle is the same Aristotle who wrote research papers into Greek porn. Whatever the case, he was rational.
Aristotle did advance the Greeks far beyond the Chinese and Indians by dealing with reality metaphysically. Through his works called metaphysics (which means reality?), the Greeks were able to clearly divide reality into the sciences, arts, religions and so on. The Chinese and Indians never did this.
Ok, so moving on to the subject of the later metaphysics, Immanuel Kant and lessors of that time, he is called the father of epistemology. Out of his metaphysical considerations came the idea of the cognitive sciences: psychology, sociology and something called the living biosphere [whatever that is]. As Aristotle's works helped divide reality into the arts and science et al, Kant helped divide science into the cognitive and natural sciences.
Okay. So, a question in philosophy is whether the cognitive sciences unify by reduction with the natural sciences. Are the cognitive sciences even a science? There is a good argument that the cognitive sciences take on more the characteristics of art [with their endless methodologies].
So, Kant did not know about the cognitive sociological and psychological sciences himself for such did not exist. Rather, he argued that science fails in its attempt to reduce itself to natural science alone. Something was amiss with the scientific method. And so on . . .

Sounds just like the unseen teacher in the Peanuts' TV cartoons.

"WAH WAH WAH, WAH WAH, WAH WAH WAH WAH".

And just about as interesting and relevant to ANYTHING significant.

< YAWN!!! >

Bye!

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Sounds just like the unseen teacher in the Peanuts' TV cartoons.

"WAH WAH WAH, WAH WAH, WAH WAH WAH WAH".

And just about as interesting and relevant to ANYTHING significant.

< YAWN!!! >

Bye!

Yes. In order to make this interesting, most of us have to pay for it. This payment by us provides us with a professor who when he or she isn't controlling our behavior can teach us that we don't know what we are talking about, the first prerequisite.
I brought up the philosophy of science to point out that we don't even begin to understand that science doesn't reduce to only natural science until the advent of Kant. Ironically, Immanuel Kant the anti-realist eventually forsook the philosophy of science being that he fell in love with Rousseau's essays.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Yes. In order to make this interesting, most of us have to pay for it. This payment by us provides us with a professor who when he or she isn't controlling our behavior can teach us that we don't know what we are talking about, the first prerequisite.
I brought up the philosophy of science to point out that we don't even begin to understand that science doesn't reduce to only natural science until the advent of Kant. Ironically, Immanuel Kant the anti-realist eventually forsook the philosophy of science being that he fell in love with Rousseau's essays.

"Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false." -- Bertrand Russell