You mean me? No I am not him. ;o)
I can understand why you and Larken are fed up with the non believers. One needs to pay good attention to the evidence and the details. The story is a bit involved. It is not easy to have a calm two way conversation on Steemit. I would ask both of you to be more patient if you want more people to believe your side. And to Joe Public, there is evidence, in my opinion, that at least Ben intended to violate the NAP, as explained in another comment of mine in this post.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Thanks for the response.
I have to disagree with you on Larken, I know that he does not like Adam and I imagine that these two have been at it in Archopolco. With Larken's email message evidence I really think he was trying to keep it under the radar. But if Adam is twisting the story, which is what Larken's evidence is showing, I can understand why Larken would come out with this video only after Adam's alleged deception to keep Jeff from having to defend his decision. It is consistent with what I perceive Larken's character to be. You can see this as well in the other video from Larken that kafkanarchy84 keeps refering to in comments on recent Kokesh's posts. I imagine that you have been following those as well.
Larken says it like it is, which is why it is good for him to sometimes avoid saying it like it is, and other times to come out and say it like it is.
With the perceived threat from Ben and likely in association Adam towards kafkanarchy84 and possibly Larken one would have to understand the emotional outrage from both kafkanarchy84 and Larken.
In my opinion the one who is " just waiting for an opportunity to fuck things up for Adam even more", is someone else.
NAP in theory is a great idea but in reality there will always be aggression. You just have to do the best you can to avoid being the aggressor yourself as much as possible.
I am staying tuned, this story is getting interesting.
Is downvoting on youtube a violation of the non aggression principle?
Is leaving a bad review on a book because you didn't like it, a violation of the non aggression principle?
Is removing a comment on a website that you own, a violation of the non aggression principle?
I see it not as a violation of the non aggression principle.
Someone not talking to you in the way you want is not a violation.
For if the NAP was violated it would justify you using force to defend yourself.
And someone saying a bunch of words or flagging, does not justify that.
Example
If someone would say to me, I hate you or you are an ...... (fill in the blanks), not talking PC enough, or flagging me for whatever reason, he or she is not violating me or the non aggression principle.
Politeness has nothing to do with it. That is not what it's about.
I'm not addressing thoughts or what someone said to someone else, in this reply I'm just addressing the NAP and what it means and what not.
Hope you understand.
A genuine question.
Do you believe in hate speech? And would you justify leaders (what I call rulers) or groups to use violence to make people not talk in a certain way ,flag or express their opinion in a certain way?
Maybe you feel that way but you are not silenced. I can and do read flagged reply's ;)
You or I can of course always challenge or discuss others in their language use the power of disassociation and excommunication ourselves of someone we don't want to talk to. If enough people feel that way about language, it will happen.........just like that.
But I can not force someone with violence to be tolerant or nice to me that would not be tolerant of me. The NAP is about physical force. Not verbal, for if it was, the way someone feels about words would justify physical force. I believe in freedom of speech and with that of course freedom of association to boycott or disassociate.
I don't need or want a (religious) leader. (I don't believe in the "great man theory") You are of course free to pick a leader for yourself who will preach or teach, to people how they are suppose live according to you or him/her. Just like a Jehova witness can tell people they are suppose to live a certain way for everything to be like they want (heaven), but they can not force me to live that way.
I believe we grow just by living and talking or not talking, saying dumb things, seeing others saying dumb things, and we need that freedom to make mistakes and do dumb things.
Freedom, for me, is not an objective to be gained through this or that ideology (or collectively) in the future.
It is now and here within me, and what I DO in the physical world and in my relationships (in reality) is more important than an ideology or a plan (what I SAY) and how everyone else needs to listen to me or the thought leader I want them to follow to make the world how I want it to be.
I'm a bit busy and replying in between, and my native language is not english so maybe some words might be not completely correct or I said something twice or so. ;)
Thanks for the reply.
Peace :)