Discuss General Topics.
Yeah, that's basically it. There's no admittance fee. The face paintaing, climbing things, games and music are free, you pay for hotdogs, cotton candy and the like plus whatever the artisans are selling.
There's no point in educating someone who dwells so deeply in willing ignorance (they must dig themselves out when so deeply entrenched in bad moral ethics) but I can point out that someone who does not understand how enlightenment works would not have the background that provides ethics to discern between an enlightened being and an unenlightened being, an enlightened society or an unenlightened society.
Any enlightened being can surely point out why slavery is immoral and not just semantically, but in principle, out of alignment with higher authority which is love.
We need law to respect the essence of higher authority within every living being but when that law is subverted into slavery and enforces evidentiary privileged rules for self-ownership to justify the rules of society it becomes not an enlightened use of the law but a self-serving, ego-gratifying, self-absorbed, hypnotic, manipulative control tool to use as a strawman for the morality that is lacking within such a structure of deceit, cowardice, and the very anti-thesis to higher authority which happens to be love.
Truth, love and reality all coincide with each other, so when I see a rule of society enforced as law that places men and women into an ownership structure/slavery via trickery and ommitting certain pertinent facts that would shed light on the nature of these acts the moral structure of those acts are non-existent as ethical.
Nothing up front need be hidden if the intent were to be honorable.
There is no point in further discussion with you Arouet as you are a happy slave content to be someone elses playtoy in life. This is not an insult but the basic reality of your situation. See you don't really understand higher authority so do not have a clue why slavery is immoral but I do like to explain a tiny portion of that understanding simply for the lurkers to see that there is a higher intelligence in this world than the egotistical mind. This intelligence was high enough to bend a lawyer against his will and had him admit intellectual defeat twice now even though sincerity is lacking, it is enough for the lurkers to see that it is possible to advocate the truth higher than untruths as the truth has no opposite.
The truth is point A and untruth is everything else which does not create a point B. The truth has no opposite.
P.S. Free hotdogs in my neck of the woods sunday!
As soon as you sign everything to me i'll begin the letters patent incorporating the federally regulated trust company. (Minimum reserves must be 5 million dollars so i'll need you to get all your family and friends to sign everything over to me as well, surely you won't mind.)
But in all seriousness...
You may think that we should feel lucky to be owned by such enlightened leaders such as
canada Arouet but there is something else you didn't consider.
It is the principle involved with good moral ethics and the concept of trust.
You alluded earlier to that you feel the government is responsible and trustworthy to do
what is right with ownership of your person.
Responsibility is no small order, to be responsible means to be answerable to a higher
authority, but what authority are we talking about here? What kind of authority would
someone have to be responsible to to be able to claim responsibility over the people?
Well it makes sense that the people themselves would be the authority government would have to be
responsible to. It appears to be a circle of trust, the people trusting government to be responsible as
authority and the government trusting people to be responsible as authority.
Any agreement can be made with anyone but how is one going to keep this circle of trust in
check? In other words Arouet, what is preventing either side from breaking that trust?
Well the government which is comprised of people enforces the law/acts which is a written
body of words which we have both gone over together already, and the people when acting as
constituents vote on different representatives to uphold that supposed authority that the
people never had to delegate to begin with, but do anyways, but that is a different facet of
another principle just as valid only not our focus.
What matters in this explaination is what is keeping the parties responsible to each other?
If either side lacks certain qualities of responsibility the circle of trust is broken. What
qualities of responsibility are required in order to maintain an integral circle of trust
between both parties? What is stopping one authority from taking advantage of the other
authority? This is the crux of the matter and at the heart of it we find there is a higher
authority both parties in this trust circle are answerable to.
This higher authority is the quality of responsibility both parties must maintain in order to upkeep this trusting
The law keeps the people from taking advantage of the government but nothing is keeping the
government and most of it's agencies from taking advantage of the people, nothing at all.
The reason nothing is keeping the government (comprised of people) from taking advantage of
the people is because the government doesn't know love.
You see love is the basis for trust Arouet. Nothing else would convince an intelligent being
to trust another being or entity. In other words, No intelligent being deeply trusts an
unloving being. Love is the safe guard that prevents immorality and unethical intent in
relationships. How could a trusting relationship be possible between multiple parties if all
parties are not responsible to true higher authority which is love? It cannot.
Without the knowledge of love one side of the relationship can follow through on any
unloving intent without impunity of guilt, conscience or empathy. No barrier is immoral no
wall of decency is left intact and ethics are a mere concept of the mind for the
unenlightened to ignore.
Earlier you admitted Arouet that it is unfortunate that the courts do not recognize the
primacy of love. I agree with you that it is unfortunate because if they were able to
recognize the primacy of love they would remain in the circle of integrity that being
answerable to true higher authority would allow to maintain the quality of responsibility
required in keeping the trust unbroken between both parties.
This however is not happening as you have admitted.
I do not see how you could claim to be
intelligent and be able to trust an unloving entity at the same time seeing as no
intelligent being deeply trusts an unloving being.
The circle of trust is broken when higher authority is not recognized. There is no reason to
trust the government but there is a reason to not trust the government, it is because the
government doesn't know love and thus does not recognize it as you have stated, that is
You as well Arouet do not know love so cannot have that quality of
responsibility to recognize a trusting party in your personal or even official relationships
Not just semantically Arouet but in principle, you are dreadfully mistaken.
It is the principle of the matter after all, and nothing personal.
Be well Arouet.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests